INFJ here: I could never - or wouldn't ever want to - live in a world, where a life doesn't matter. Even if they had no one, their life is still not worthless. For me, there would still need to be a punishment.
The person who was murdered was a valuable human life whether or not anyone ever noticed. If you do not believe that, I don't know how to explain that to you... And maybe the person even would go on to achieve something special or have an impact on someone else's life. And even if they don't, we still all impact each other in some way, even if it's just smiling at someone on the street, making their shitting day a little better. It's kinda horrible to think that anyone would define other people's lifes and value. You don't have to "deserve" to live (or stay alive and not randomly be killed). And that other person who still have commited a horrible crime. How could anyone be okay with someone walking around who did that? Even if you ignore the part about the victim, that still does something to the murderer and leaves a stain on them forever. And if they are unimpactet - how horrible is that? Not being impacted by killing someone. That's a psychopath. Who even are they to think they could be the judge of the worth of someone else's life.
@@timefortee I would say a lesser punishment if they are truly sincere but only if they are genuinely repenting some people say or fake that they have repented but haven't actually done so. Say instead of going to prison they get a big fine or community service.
Agree that their life is valuable but what does that have to do with punishment? The person remains dead in any case. The only thing we're deciding is whether another person goes to jail or not.
@@thecommenter2711 That would obviously mean we have to all rethink our entire philosophy and system in more regards than just this one. So why do we not stick to the given framework ;)
INFP: My mind has been blown! I have always wondered if I was really an INFP since I've always valued logic but that was more Ti. I've finally realized that I have Fi and just really value logic!! It's really been bothering me for a while!
Haha, I figured that was the case with me. INFP with adhd. Always liked math and logic b/c they make sense. When I'm being impulsive though I do things that make no logical sense and I do them b/c they feel right. For instance, I noticed today "I am a gym rat at home depot with platinum blonde dyed hair with arm falls of plants... people must think I'm insane. Oh well"
As an INFP I value logic and use both logic and emotion to grid values. I employ logic- Lol, I just don’t enjoy logic for the fun of it. Logic puzzles and Sudoku annoy me
Yes! I have an infp mom who is not very logical. She doesn't value logic. On the other hand, I have an isfp friend who is very logical and values logic. Both fi doms.
As an INFP, I'd say the best way to describe Fi is to see it as a kind of compulsion or addiction to honouring your deepest feelings at any cost. Basically, If I take any action that feels inauthentic, goes against my values and ideals and just doesn't fit with the life I want to live then it feels like I am stabbing myself in the gut and lying to myself which causes anxiety and depression. I need to live out my emotional and subjective truths to be truly happy even if my actions seem strange to others or reality whacks me across the head for my temerity to turn my daydreams into reality. It means some of my actions can come across to others as coming out of the blue or lacking logical consistency. But there is an emotional logic behind every action I take and that is that I want to feel most fully myself, to be authentic and live life on my own terms and to avoid the pain I feel from doing the sensible thing when my heart is calling out to me to do the opposite. When it comes to a choice between doing the sensible thing or following my heart, I must follow my heart such is the price of Fi.
I asked my ISTJ father about the murder and if he would send him to prison. He said yes. Yes, because that's just disgusting how some people think in society, they're are better or more important than others and therefore are allowed to not go to prison. Everyone who did a crime needs to get punished, no matter how "awesome" they are. ISTJs are awesome, I'd say.
@@dooferfis Yes somehow I get along the best with ISTPs and ISTJs. I love their coolness and their humor :)) Strangely, I'm an ENFP. People say, ENFPs get along the best with INFPs or INFJs, but honestly, whenever I talk to my INFJ friend, I feel like I could hurt her with any word I say. I have to be so careful with her, but with the ISTJs and ISTPs I know, it's kind of the opposite, so I enjoy that haha
This is the same thought I had in mind. It doesn't matter if that person was a nobody. He probably had some great things waiting for him in life, but noone would know since he was killed. And the murderer should be punished regardless. He took someone's life pointlessly and should feel remorse
ESTJ here: The murdered person had 1 loved one- themselves. If it were my life on the line, it would matter to ME! The best course of action I can think of would be to create a social campaign of sorts, using this person's picture and as much personal information about them as I could garnish (those little details that we can all relate to) and plaster it all over social media to help their community get to know them...at which point they would hopefully become "valuable" enough to regain entry into our justice system. Really appreciate the Fi videos... it's like studying your worst subject in school in a language you can barely speak lol, but I can relate and it is helpful.
As a ENFP I recognize Fi as being forced to check how u feel about everything u perceive and interact with. Much like Te/Ti with Ne/Ni. Then put these checks into frameworks with Ne, and create large webs of emotional logic. Its a inconsistent and bizarre realm, were things are rewired based on the potency of feeling rather than what makes sense. Very non-rigid, unpredictable and beautiful. Quite a bit of my core values stem in Te though. I like to think Ne is a somewhat balanced mix of the two.
When someone hurts me with his words or deeds it's like there's a fight in me like was he/she right was he/she wrong/ my opinions kinda oscillate at this point/ , over the time my indecisiveness with this issue gets weaker and weaker and I reach the point where nobody can change my mind...that's how I get extremely stubborn with my opinions. /enfp/...that's why i do hold grudges
I have just visited your channel and I am so proud of you as an enfp But also so so disappointed Your chaos knows no limits (i am not really disappointed you are very cute)
Yes haha I call it the "check yourself" function. Because we are perceivers first. Alot of times that is manafesting for me as me deciding whether or not it is a good idea (Fi) to poke the "beehive" (Ne).
Plot twist: The person who was murdered was in the process of writing one of the greatest books ever written. Secondary plot twist (nah, just my Fi judgment): The person who was murdered was a valuable human life whether or not anyone ever noticed.
@appletree Tertiary plot twist- the author's magnum opus will be more popular after his demise, because many great artists are not fully appreciated in their own lifetime.
@@maggis0 I meant the person who got killed, not the killer. But a lot of writers and thinkers seem to have been inspired by jail...I guess there's lots of time to think!
Why did he murder? Was in a bad mood and took it out on this guy? Was there an argument that went out of control? Did the murderer feel any remorse? - INFJ
Did the murderer feel any remorse? Was the victim ready to go? What was the point? Does the murderer contribute more to society out of guilt? Is life only valuable if it affects other people? How crule was the murder? I have many questions and I'm not sure what my answer is
What if the person who was murdered, had he lived, could offer more to society than his murder? We could never know, so potentially the murder harmed society istead of helping them. Therefore, the murder should be punished. -ENTJ
Well, here's my ISTP answer: Yes, I would put him in jail, because there is no way to know he would never commit another crime, and has demonstrably proven himself capable of murder. I reject the latter half of the hypothetical because decisions aren't made with all of the information that exists, only what is available. You want me to decide, and the only way to know he would never commit another crime is to wait until he dies. So why put anyone in jail, by that reasoning? Why are two crimes proof of guilt, but only one crime is not? Do we all have one "free" murder, as long as we know in our hearts we'll never commit another crime, and we make sure we just kill the "right" victim? You don't need strong Fi to see how harmful such a concept could be.
Yes, but he explained that the reasoning behind why you’d imprison the murderer could be Fi-based. I’m INFP, and I would send him away because she has transgressed the sacredness of life in a hostile and needless way. He could perhaps be understood and rehabilitated at a later time, but my initial instinct is that despite the social invisibility of the murder’s victim, what the killer did is wrong; and thereby, he must be punished for it.
@@atmodlee I still see my reasoning as being primarily pragmatic. I do believe in justice and fairness, and that does play a part in my reasoning, but everyone values something. The ENTP given in the video values the greater good, which is a use of Fi, but the decision in the end will tend to be decided by the higher functions: Ti and Se in my case.
As an INTP I think along simular terms. At least to your start. In the end guilt is an abstract concept that's meant to bring human society forward. Punishing him because he's guilty is no valid reason on its own for me. Guilt is just a mechanic that evolved to show what's best for society as a whole. It's about what comes after, and the picture Nathan drew is inconsistent when there's no punishment. It means I. E. the murderer didn't learn anything and is likely to do more crimes.
@@9SMTM6 "Guilt," on its own, is an insufficient metric. Rule of law, on the other hand, is more important for us to honor, because life without it is pre-modern at best, ill-suited for modern material circumstances. However, it's not necessarily true that legal punishment equals learning one's lesson. If the murderer has reflected on the act, he may regret it deeply and never actually be in danger of committing another crime. But is education really the purpose of punishment? If someone is willing to murder as an adult, no amount of jail time will teach them otherwise.
I’m an INFP and my best friend is ESFJ. in group social settings she’d usually be the one with higher energy and assertion, but when it comes to touchy and more personal topics in conversation i become more dominant. it’s cute haha
I'm an INFP and I say the person who murdered should at least serve some jail time because a murder is a murder no matter what and every life has some worth. It doesn't mean you have to arrest the person for life but he should at the very least serve jail time.
I agree! Another fellow INFP here. - They should face the consequences of their own actions. Murder is still murder, and yes lives hold worth/value so they should pay for the commited crime. With no chance of parole.
As a Ti and a fellow Si user, assuming there's no incredibly intricate story behind that murder such a murderer being such a value to society without issues while not seeing consequences for their actions seems inconsistent.
@@9SMTM6 Right! Is it possible to be valuable to the society on the one hand while being able to murder somebody on the other and if so, to what extent? -infp
ISFP here. The person needs to go to jail. Murder is murder. About freedom of speech. It comes with responsibility. I hate when people uses freedom of speech as an excuse to hurt people on purpose or just want to provoke to get attention.
As an ENFP, I think I'm eligible to answer that, yes , Fi is indeed an extremely versatile function(atleast in my case). When it comes to subjects that require logic, my "feeling" tells me that it needs to be dealt with logic and not with feelings, although I may "feel" like I need to take a particular decision due to my gut feeling, there's a louder voice calling out, saying that it's just not right to be illogical, it forces me to ask a trusted one for giving me logical conclusions incase I am not able to do it myself.
I think the versatility of Fi is the reason INFPs are often mistyped, especially early in life. Their Ne means that they are easily influenced when they don't have concrete values and can believe anything. As a kid and even now, I valued logic and was able to do very well in school because I valued learning and was naturally good at adapting information and taking tests. I and the people around me thought I was an INTP or an INTJ for the longest time. I have also seen INFPs that value practicality or stoicism, which makes them very grounded and different from the usual image of an INFP.
I have been wondering , how do you decide on morals , you just merely feel it ? Ok , as a ti user I sometimes would feel the mistakes in an idea but still need more time and input to define those mistakes or realise that i was wrong , so if your fi feels something how do you justify it in the beginning, is it always very clear to you why you feel this way and if not then how do you interpret your feelings or morals , is it te then? Because I have been thinking that fi is logical too and works in the same way as ti but with different inputs and thus outputs , based on my definition of logic as just comparisons using any criteria you want , so how do you compare ?
@@malakashraf2801 People describe Fi as dealing with “values” and how one “values things.” To me this appears to describe a process a priori to logical reasoning. Similar to what is described in metamathematics as “mathematical intuition” (sorry for using the word intuition with a different context and meaning from mbti). A mathematician can’t prove or disprove Euclid’s fifth postulate, only examine the geometries that emerge from using it or substituting something else. So in a sense, yes, you can use Ti or Te to interrogate values or morals, in that you can institute a first principle and then examine the emergent system. (Film spoilers!) An example is the film Everything Everywhere All At Once. The main character is faced with the question, “is existence preferable to non-existence?” Neither Joy nor Waymond make logical cases, and Evelyn must decide how she “values” existence. The consequences of either choice are played out in the multiverse.
I’m an entp (strong Fe) dating an isfp with really strong convictions (Fi). The Fi-Fe clash struggle is real. I have to tell myself to just stay quiet after I’ve expressed myself once so it doesn’t do into a toxic circuitous flow that achieves nothing.
Was the killing done in self defense or defense of another? Or was is a straight murder? Straight up murder, then jail. There are always other angles/variables to consider. Edit: Free speech needs to exist, even if you don't always agree with someone, they may have valid ideas. Some ideas need to be shared.
If the victim was a recluse and never interacted with people then it's unlikely he'd be in a situation where someone has to defend themselves against him. It's highly likely it was a justifiable homicide. That being said I still wouldn't arrest him. Injustice will always exist, greater injustices than that.
@@SirThanksalot_1 the question is about the guy who killed him. It's unlikely that his reason for killing him would be self defense because it's unlikely the recluse would attack him in the first place. Sorry, I probably could have worded things better lol
For the question, I'd go for the second answer. It's not fair for the person who was murdered. Plus, the law shouldn't be negotiable in that sense. Yes, context matters, but our contribution to the society should have nothing to do with it. If we started implementing that kind of reasoning to the law, oh boy, the domino effect wouldn't be fun at all.
True...and I think this reasoning does enter in more often than it should, if we evaluate someone's worth based on their connections and wealth and treat unfortunate "losers," like the victim in this scenario, as collateral damage.
The way you describe FI makes almost sound like something I would be strong in (seeking authenticity , strong values). But I'm an ISFJ. I guess it's just my SI+FE fooling me, because my typical ISFJ "traditional values" happen to be sort of 1800s anarchist ones, so they might seem singular and eccentric to other's but I truly feel myself that it is something traditional and with a strong heritage. But then you always say we can all come to the same destination in different ways. But INFPs are consistantly my favourite people so I guess I appreciate FI in others.
Mmm of course everyone value things in their life no matter what type they are , maybe we infps remind you your own values and dreams matter when you wanna sacrifices or ignore them because of your Fe approaches ☺️😊
As an INTP with a belief in implicit values, and who doesn't think it's at all weird to ask whether something feels right, I'm struggling with how to process this video content. Of course, I don't actually trust that something is right for me just because it feels right, but the "feel" part of the decision-making process can be a way of listening to my intuition, and I have learned over the years that I have a fairly trustworthy intuition in certain (unfortunately) narrow domains. To me, this is just a partially inaccessible part of my thinking process. Perhaps I'm deluding myself, but that's how I've seen it. My belief in implicit values is perhaps a more interesting issue. To me, the idea that there is no such thing as absolute truth is an affront to the implicit value of logical thinking. And I do not see a significant distinction between standing on a foundation of logical truth and standing on a foundation of moral truth. Sure, this begs the question of where that foundation comes from, and perhaps a high Fi user might care less about answering that question than a high Ti user, but I'm not sure that holding to implicit values is inherently an Fi thing.
This! I think the word ‘values’ as it is used in the Myers Briggs world is tricky. My INTP sibling, who I love to analyze (and vice versa) seems, to me, to judge things using her internal logic system... which makes sense. But she perceives these conclusions so be her ‘values’, and I don’t disagree. I think there are different kinds of values about different things and some are T derived and some are F derived. With her and I it has become almost something we can predict. Even when we profess to the same ‘value’ very often the ~reason~ we seem to value it is very different... and it almost always falls along T and F lines. Many of the ‘values’ we deeply and viscerally disagree on end up falling along T/F lines. I tend to be trusting or ambivalent about individual people and mistrust systems, and that informs my ‘values’ (capitalism and societal expectations and standards, etc etc). She is trusting or ambivalent about systems and mistrusts people (these people who made this system are the problem, they want something from this and I don’t like it). I guess what I’m trying to say is that my theory is the conscious ‘values’ of an Fi dom are based on a visceral ‘gut’ conclusion where those of a Ti dom are based on their logical conclusion. The Ti dom consciously ‘values’ what ‘just makes sense’ to them just as the Fi dom ‘values what feels right to them’. I’m gonna go further and posit that they are simply using a different logic system (if we want to really go there I suspect it might be right-brain (in the Iain McGilchrist sense of the term) processing in the F function). The Ti dom will have values they aren’t as consciously aware of that will come from their inferior Fe (traditional societal roles or something) and the Fi dom will have not fully conscious values based in their inferior Te (following safety rules, etc). These are inferior so they won’t be identified as values, or at least not strong values if you ask, and the person won’t be good at them... but if you watch closely I think you’ll see a trend in their tendencies. Oh, and those examples perplex me to the point that I almost can’t even engage with them. The murder one - I kinda just don’t care. My biggest thought is “what led to this person having no friends, family, or contact with society?”. Although I totes can get behind the hermit idea... it seems like society failed that person and that bugs me more than the murder. Maybe they are better off dead (harsh as that sounds)? But if they were happy with their life then I’d have srong feelings about the murderer and what they did... but really that seems unrelated to whether they go to jail or not, given the premise as it is laid out. I am also not in a position to make this sort of call - thus at a certain point I just get bored of the questions. They are stripped of humanity. Call me when you want me to judge a real situation (and your gonna have to give me a helluva lot more context). Maybe I lose interest in this example because it doesn’t hit on any of my personal strong values. With another thought experiment I might have an immediate and strong answer? 🤷🏽♀️
It's interesting how in english 'think' and 'feel' are used interchangeably a lot of the time High Fi and Ti users both benefit from being really sure of themselves and individualistic, although maybe in different ways. At the end of the day you got an introverted judging function at the top of your stack
@@notjohn2672 yes, I’ve noticed that too! As an INFP who had a medical career where I was surrounded by STs and NTs, they seemed to respect my decisions more if I said ‘I think ....’ instead of ‘I feel’ (or at least that was my impression, maybe I was just projecting my own insecurities and mirroring their word choices). Either way I noticed over the years that I’d trained myself to use the word ‘think’ but if I use it for a decision/judgement that I am strongly grounded and certain about ‘think’ gives me a slight bit of cognitive dissonance and ‘feel’ just… feels better. (LOL)
The OPs comment about learning to trust their intuition in certain narrow domains is interesting. It rings of the ‘gut’ feeling, the thing that we often label as ‘F’... the "I can’t give you a list of reasons, I just know that this is right" decisions. I am really curious (Brent Johnson if you are reading this please chime in) whether these domains have any sort of pattern to them and, because I’m testing a theory, whether they fall into Fe territory? My theory is that 'values' is not at all an F thing, but is really just decisions we believe in strongly that are drawn from our two judging functions with their preferences and strengths. Because humans are social creatures I think these all end up eventually being framed in the context of society which them makes them sound 'F'-ish. So as an INFP I draw my more clear and obvious values from my Fi but also some ‘values’ from my inferior Te, and INTPs will do the same with their inferior Fe. For an INTP This could manifest in decisions or judgements that FEEL really solid but for which they cannot easily discern a path of logic that led to it (at least not one that follows their Ti logic). My suspicion is that these will tend to relate to people/society and if examined closely will have an underpinning that can be traced to Fe. As an INFP this manifests in discovering that I actually hold a lot of respect for Te rules and structures (and in this I’m using respect in the 'values' sense of the word). You have to have some respect for something to notice it and take pleasure in subverting it, or to feel an obligation toward it. I subconsciously feel compelled to follow ‘the rules’ which also means I tend to feel shame or exhilaration when I break them (based on how my Fi sees the situation). My INTP sibling doesn’t have the same relationship with Te… but man do I see it in her with Fe!
INFJ here. I would rather pull out more information about why that person killed someone before making a decision. If it's a good reason; no imprisonment. If it's a bad reason; at least some form of punishment rather than imprisonment because I also agree with your ENTP friend.
In real cases like this there is usually not enough proof either way, claims are made but they can't provide sufficient proof. That's why I say the guy deserves capital punishment, nobody should care about "the good of society" more than a random hermit individual's life being extinguished. We also have to be careful to not get into the victim blaming mindset, like "oh what were the killer's motives? Were they good enough by my unbiased standards?" Usually the murderers have brain damage and no logic behind their actions. They aren't people to be understood or sympathized with. Source: true crime addict
It's always about those unknown variables. Perhaps that reclusive loner was some weird psycho who would harm someone in the future or has done so already, perhaps he was someone who would have done something amazing with his life. That's the problem with questions like that, too many unknown variables.
I disagree with the entire premise of the murder scenario. Even if hypothetically all of it could have physically happened, it’s impossible that the act of murdering someone didn’t have even the slightest psychological effect. If they were any moral person, they’d be internally crushed by guilt for what they’d done, preventing them from being a functioning member of society. If they didn’t feel guilt, they obviously are some kind of psychopath or have other problems of some sort, and therefore wouldn’t either be a functioning member of society. Also, religion definitely plays a role in someone’s answer. Even if someone doesn’t logically believe that justice must be carried out in this situation, they may choose that answer anyway due to religious beliefs. I’m an INFJ btw.
I was thinking the same thing. I can't see a cold-blooded murderer being such a positive person for the rest of their life. Best I could see happening was the person becomes a philanthropist or something as a means to assuage their guilt.
@@purplekitti5784 and what if their guilt leads to an attornment leads to exponentially greater good that the murderer offers the world? To assume that the guilt would be so crippling to the point that they wouldn't function is one possibility but not certainty; there are murderers and rapists and all kinds of criminals who go on to lead "normal" lives after rehabilitation. We also fail to realize that the murderer could add good to the world INDIRECTLY by being a force of evil or non-good simply by existing. Must the murderer be the person who actively brings about the good for us to justify the murder, or is it enough that through their life and ONLY their life, some force of good comes about? Do we as humans even have a wide enough scope of the entirety of the world and humanity to judge such things? That's a rhetorical question. - INFJ
You know, you make a good point. The people that find the body and have to clean it up will also be negatively affected by all this. The police investigating the crime would have to decide how diligently they are willing to pursue justice on this case, the autopsy people would have to thoroughly examine physical evidence, the people who take position of the mans home are going to disclose the events that transpired to potential buyers, and the killer gets to live the rest of his life never having to face consequences for his bad actions. A lot more people have been hurt here than just the murder victim. The killer needs to be punished.
@@Takisan111 Actually, the stipulation was that "no one" would be affected by his death, so I'm guessing that means people cleaning up. The more you go into this, the more it turns into a paradox, rather than a plausible argument. Oh well.
You're presenting a false dichotomy here. You assume the murderer would either be "internally crushed by guilt...preventing them from being a functioning member of society" or a psychopath who experiences no feelings of guilt whatsoever and who wouldn't be a functioning member of society. There is a lot of room in between those two ends of the guilt-feeling spectrum. Two people will experience guilt in different ways and to varying degrees, even if they've done the same guilt-producing act. For me--an INTP--negative emotions are easily compartmentalized, which means I put them in the "information" file. The pain I experience from stubbing my toe on a table leg is merely informing me that I need to watch where I'm going. I don't like how stubbing my toe feels, and I don't like the way guilt feels, so I avoid stubbing my toe and doing again whatever it is that produced the guilt. Feeling perpetual guilt (to the point where it would be debilitating) is like intentionally and repeatedly stubbing my toe (to the point where I'd have to get my foot amputated) to remind me of something I already know. Redundant and unnecessary. That isn't to say that every once in a while, when it gets cold and damp, my toe doesn't still feel the old injury. Pangs of guilt still come and go in the same way, but just because someone doesn't feel guilt to the same level you might feel it or to the level you think is "appropriate", that doesn't mean they are amoral. Good people can do bad things.
high Fe with high Fi can work superbly in my experience (especial type INFJ here) INFP is easy ENFPs are chaos but fun Sure there's conflict, but there's also conflict within Fi users. In a lot of ways Fi needs Fe and vice versa. That's also probably true for all the other functions, opposites attract
The thing is some people percept opposite or different values as "no values", which is factually wrong. So the last part about Fi being anything is highly appreciated.
Re: Murderer - He should be TRIED, but the circumstances should be evaluated before imprisoning him. It could have been accidental. It could have been provoked. Or who knows. To simply let him continue in society because he does great things for it dismisses not only the value of the hermit who died, but it sends the message that basically anyone in society is expendable so long as their deaths don't interrupt "good" people, as well as saying that you're allowed to get away with murder just because you're "good". Re: Free speech - It's pretty darned destructive as things are right now. XD You can still value something that is good even if there are some people who use it irresponsibly. This is just pretty standard in life, imo. Re: "Being misunderstood is a perpetual Fi problem." - Oh hell yeah, it is! Re: Fi vs Fe - Yeah, Fi users can often view Fe's as being "fake" just so other people get along with them, and Fe's can think Fi's are "opinionated" or judgemental. Both *can* be true in some instances, but those assumptions are just as likely to be illusions. -- "intentionally going against group harmony" - Oh, believe me, it's not intentional. We usually have no idea there's such a thing as "group harmony" and can't track it once we find out it exists. XD XD XD Re: "Moved by the plights of individuals" - Very useful thing, to be concerned about the marginalized and the underdogs among us. :3 That way we can do something about it. Re: "Those values might be anything." - YES. It's weird when I see other Fi's defending against the idea that "so-and-so was xxFP" by asserting "But so-and-so was a known liar, and xxFPs absolutely HATE lying and hypocrisy!" Sure, many of us do, but let's say the only way you have ever seen the world was as a hostile entity that will continue to bar your path as long as it's aware of your transparent actions/ behavior, than an Fi user can easily be drawn to the idea of using lies as a tool, especially if they can come up with ways to justify it. (Speaking as one who went through a period like that, and also have known LOTS of FPs who lie a maddening amount.) - ENFP
The person who killed another human should be in jail, given it wasn’t self defence. I wouldn’t correlate someone’s value to the amount of people who knew and loved them. I think this makes the crime worse in fact because it insinuates that they’re meaningless. I think they deserved more.
As an Fe user, I'm jealous of how Fi seems so sure all the time Someone's value is how much they're contributing. From what the problem says, the person isn't. We know that they're at least close to meaningless by how the problem was posed. Why do you think they deserve more?
@@notjohn2672 I am usually very unsure, nothing is absolute. However, i am very sure i disagree with your point of view. Comparing someone's worth to a societal idea of contribution is naïve at best and inhumane at worst. Worth transcends society, society is merely a means to prevent chaos. To put it in a way that may perhaps ignite your Fe, this guy, you're referring to as having little meaning, evidently has had such a horrible life, no one and no hope and to top it off he ends up being murdered and never getting justice. I don't think the murderer deserves the glory of his possible future accomplishments, give it enough time and someone else will probably come up with them and simultaneously not be a killer. Even from a less emotional standpoint, the idea of matching someone's worth to theri "societal contribution" is dangerous. Does this mean i could go around and kill homeless people? They aren't contributing to society, so is that okay? It is obviously not. Writing this has exposed myself to a strong view i didn't know i had, i generally value people's worth off of how kind they are, not what they can do for me.
I was just thinking, I know a fairly comparable real-world scenario. A whole LOT of rapists and sexual offenders get away with minimal consequences (not serving a lot of jail time, not losing their jobs) due to the argument that they "contribute" so much to their work/ profession/ society. How about contributing in a more morally ethical way, such as not raping/ murdering/ sexually harassing, etc? The idea of "contributing to society" needs to include protecting lives, property, and well-being.
@@rachiekimberly6800 I love your comments, thank you for posting them! Also, I very much relate with being unsure about many things; also the statement: "I generally value people's worth off of how kind they are, not what they can do for me." The way I first thought about that situation is that, basically, a life is a life. In most places in modern society if I'm not mistaken, life is a right you are born with, not one you have to earn, right? This victim in the scenario is a fellow person with thoughts, hopes, likes, fears, faith, dreams and so on. A soul. Maybe this person liked waking up and seeing clear skies, or walking around and feeling the breeze, or was doing a job, or just enjoyed whatever freedom he/she had in any way it existed for them. It is their right. This person, as far as we know, has overall not done any harm to society, even if also not any good. In this case, this person was an innocent. If indeed this is true and this person was murdered without having attacked anyone or anything like that, this victim deserves justice. The criminal should be punished. If nothing else, I think the killer should at least be in house arrest, maybe continue to contribute to society from there. Having a loved one die is an unfortunate and very sad event, but I don't think that's the reason murderers get punished by law. The reason I think is, you steal a fellow person's life and future, so you pay for your crime. The event of people mourning is a consequence of death, but the crime is the killing.
Even if the murdered person was of no use to the greater population doesn't mean they were insignificant to themselves. The murdered person had a universe within their own mind that was extinguished by another human, one who supposedly knows what it means to act in a way that effects the greater community in a positive manner. Thus, they are not above the rules of society even if they redeem themselves later on. Human society should protect even those who chose to avoid it, otherwise what's really happening at the foundation of having a society that doesn't value human life at the most basic level of existence. -INTJ As for Fi itself, I think it has the potential to be one of the functions that develops the most in a person's lifetime and can drastically change how a person interacts and views the world. It can cause drastic imbalances in a person seemingly overnight if it's acting unchecked by the others in the function stack.
*"A person is a person, no matter how small" or ignored.* Plus, the murderer can still do good things in jail. If he were destined to be good for society for the rest of his life, then he can still do so from behind bars. -INFP
This has been very helpful. Ti and Fi were always problematic for me to explain or to tell them apart, but this video has made things much clearer and even for my own type I'm now pretty sure I don't have Fi.
Addressing Love Who’s Paradox (5:05 - 5:55) in response to lovewho’s point, a top commenter, an infp, stated: “I have always wondered if i was really an infp since i’ve always valued logic but that was more ti. i’ve finally realized that i have fi and just really value logic!” another commenter responded with “that makes both of us, knowing that fi can value *anything* has…etc” if it is indeed possible for an ixfp, specifically infp to *value* any trait, behaviour, or skill (ei logic), why aren’t infps, from what i’ve seen, versatile as hell? why are there some moral principles that almost all fi doms consistently share? ..sure, there are some morals that are universally agreed upon as “bad” (m•rder, r•pe, etc), with most kid stories and movies promoting messages that denounce these actions. the adults of our society view it as a priority to instil these moral convictions into children, since this formative period is when they're beginning to mould their personal views on the world. - as such, the “consistent morality” seen in infps can be attributed to each one having been raised, and injected with similar moral beliefs - and without some form of ti inclination towards critically assessing the validity of these ethical verdicts - they may accept these beliefs as face value right/wrongs. so consistent morality makes sense, but, from what i’ve noticed, infp values aren’t always consistent between subjects. there is significant variation. as such, what about an fi dom who *values* “logical understanding”? technically speaking, it should be possible, for the following reasons. first off, a common characteristic among types that prioritize feeling (fi/fe) is “the desire to embody behaviours that appeal to *someone's* preferences” - for high fe types, their outwards behavior is influenced by the expectations, needs, and wants of those around them. in contrast, for fi types, their behaviour is typically based around on the personal feelings, sense of identity, and desires of the subject. to provide a simpler definition: fe - behaviour intends to appeal to group desire fi- behaviour intends to appeal to personal desire this principle helps discern why ixfp’s often have an inclination towards identifying as an “intj” or similar, and then proceed to embody the “edginess”, or other quirks that makes these types unique (often to compensate the bad rep their actual types get) - and embody because they find the type appealing. now, to answer the initial question, one hypothetical reason why an infp might have an aspiration towards logical understanding could stem from an admiration for the intp stereotype (200 iq genius who disregards social conventions), which could be a behaviour that an infp might aspire to adopt/emulate. so, its now settled that an infp could hypothetically value logic. then why tf dont they apply it? (also, i’ve addressed their consistent morality, but what about they’re inconsistent, but not all-encompassing values?): there is such a wide range of tangible, conceivable things in this world, from organisms to inanimate objects to concepts to textures, so what is keeping infps from having values ranging from all sorts of things, and instead seeming to be mostly restrained? i don’t think it’s true that they can value anything, but why? well, the following question *should* answer the previous one: what imparts personal meaning to an infp? - does it have to be a living/breathing thing? no, i’ve encountered infps who are drawn towards art and similar, non living things (even objects). - is it that they need to relate to it? no, i’ve met multiple infps who believe in/support a “cause” that has no semblance to anything remotely human-esc. so, there doesn’t seem to be a consistent way to define what infps designate as meaningful or not - what they value. which yet again reinstates my confusion over their lack of versatility in this area, and why they are never inherently logical due to it being a value of theirs (“maybe they don’t have the ti to properly apply it?” well, i’ve met many an infp who excels at logic puzzles and similar tasks). even so, from a utility standpoint, it makes sense why an infp might be *less inclined* towards logic, and similar constructs - as they are more likely to designate personal value into a thing then perceive it as objectively “valuable”. to elaborate: seeing as infps don’t innately prioritize logic, to have it they’d need to learn/recognize it as a useful skill - a mental process which requires designating something as “objectively valuable”. that said, with enough at stake, or in the case that logic (or similar) was a byproduct of something more “meaningful”, some infps would be drawn towards using it. so where does it happen? why don’t infps who value “logical debates” ever seem to exist???
I posed that exact same question (to myself and others) a year or so ago when I was questioning whether I might actually be an INFP who, through some paradox of Fi, valued Ti to the extent I seemed to mimick an INTP. However, upon further reflection, when you really examine a person's values, Fi valuing Ti implicitly would not present in the same way as Ti being implicitly valued as a dominant function. It would only be the Fi-user's conception of what Ti might be. Because inferior Te and dominant Fi are naturally going to conflict with Ti and Fe. What's "good for the goose" is not necessarily "good for the gander." Fi-users still stay true to their own values and morals, at the detriment of, and often against Fe, while being insecure about Te collective reasoning and consensus. Staying true to one's individual reasoning at the detriment of Te and being insecure about Fe harmony would conflict with those dynamics. Some types seem to be able to handle internal contradiction a bit better than others. But the thing about the introverted judging functions is they seem to have an extremely low tolerance for contradiction within their internal framework. So just how Ti can't withstand logical contradiction and inconsistencies in reasoning/principles, so too Fi, I think, would not be able to withstand moral contradiction and inconsistencies in morality/value judgements. So I think the contradiction posed by truly valuing Ti, as that inextricably implies valuing Fe, would present too much conflict against Fi for the Fi-dom to acquiesce. In this hypothetical, Fi "valuing" Ti might look more like admiration of Ti than truly emulating its use. Also, you might say Fi is one of the most "versatile" in its capacity to value almost anything only when considered broadly on the spectrum of all Fi-users. But within any given individual, Fi values can be pretty rigid and must all align with each other, which is, in a way, the opposite of "versatile." It certainly does not afford the individual versatility. I'd be more amenable to saying Fi is one of the most _individualistic_ functions. But, in a way, aren't all introverted functions that way? Si users like what they like, in a sensory way, and have attachments to objects and memories in a very individual way that will vary from person to person too. Just as an example. That doesn't make Si doms versatile. It just means Si doms, as a group, might display a wide array of idiosyncrasies, rituals and routines, but no one Si dom will display all those or have much flexibility in their preferences. I'd maybe just say introverted functions result in patterns that can vary greatly from individual to individual.
this was an interesting read. ive definitely been struggling on figuring out on whether im an intp or infp despite the many things ive read about both functions.
@@morxsine That's a common dilemma. If you do have auxiliary Ne, I regret to inform you that you may never truly feel 100% certain. At best I reach tentative conclusions (albeit, I am usually perfectly fine sitting with the uncertainty, or lack of closure, in a way other types aren't). I tend to go through cycles where I do my due diligence in exploring alternative hypotheses and question myself, only to eventually re-settle on the same tentative conclusion... tentatively lol. Do you happen to know your enneagram type?
I think this is a great point. I do feel though that there are a lot of people that believe they are hyper-rational and identify with beign INTPs, or perhaps INTJs, when they're actually INFPs who are extremly good at rationalising their beliefs, but these beliefs are formed based on their feelings/values, not via critical reasoning, even if they're clever. These people would also find it difficult to ever be wrong, as their ideas are based on values connected to their identity, rather than ideas based on reason.
@@thatonekaeyamain6725 i would never rickroll you- insert a seemingly irrelevant reference that has eventual, hilarious relevance, always. but never rickroll. i enjoy this channel's discussions too much!
@@blackoceancreativeuniverse omg same i luv the channel too and just enjoy reading people share their opinions and knowledge it gives me a sense of satisfaction that I cannot explain and even I give out unrelated or irrelevant references and example We are not so different it’s good to know 🙃
Also answering your question 1:13 from a personal SUBJECTIVE OPINION 😂 (I'm sorry i have to say this because me and my mom love each other so much but i end up debating with and so she starts getting annoyed because of that XD). Okay answering your question now. We need to understand the person who murdered is a complete hypocrite. He has committed a disgusting crime and must be put to jail. It doesn't matter if the person is popular or barely known by the society, justice is for everyone, it also depends why he killed him although killing is way too extreme so he would need to have an extremely convincing reason. The word justice exists for a reason. If there were to be no justice for the person who was murdered then that self contradicts the concept of justice. The murderer who is now a "Nice" person "Helping" the society out, people would view him in that way because they see him behave that way, but what most people wouldn't do is question is past. So to summarise my response, Yes. I would have that person in jail even though he killed someone not known by the society at all. A crime is a crime.
ENTP here - I do not value justice or punishment for its own sake. It makes no sense. As a parent, I don't use punishment, because learning a concept happens best when the concept is understood rather than tied to arbitrary punishment. I understand equitability and egalitarianism, but justice is often a weapon, and punishment is a placebo for the masses as opposed to an effective process for improvement.
since the incident isn’t known and no on would be like “oh murder for free” punishing the murderer is pointless cause the now-good murderer could offer good things to society and punishing the murderer doesn’t do any good to anyone. but if this would make other people go on a killing spree, the murderer should be punished to make an example. -intp
For the murder moral dilemma I think it comes down to the motivation of murder. If you wanted to accurately evaluate the impact of the murderer on the society you have to acknowledge that the real value of an individual to society is not only his productivity, but also his morals. This individual will go on to spread his values and might even start a family and have kids who might get influenced with his values...
First question actually reminding me of death note. Light Yagami was killing criminals for making the world a better place , but at the end when Near tells him "you are just a mass criminal" it cleared the whole thing. Crime is crime no matter how good intentions you had while committing it. And in this question that dude murdered a random reclusive person which definitely makes him a criminal not matter how amazing he is. You can not defend a crime just because the victim had no family or nobody will know about it.
INFP here. 100% agree. Fi can be anything. Fi vs Ti: As an INFP, I make every decision, especially big ones, based in a highly complex framework of constructed values, often ethical, often what I like (which is based in motivation), often what helps preserve a sense of peace (Si) and increasingly in later years in life with a logic to it (derived from Te, for instance what works, and what works not, or what science says). The data is obtained always from Ne (neverending exploration of information). Earlier in life I was very scientific (Ne is very curious, so science fullfilled the Fi interest). Later music got an interest in me in my twenties. Then social systems. Then science again. Others do see me as a complicated being, the Fi problem. I think the Ti framework is easier. Its pure logic, its more scientific. Its easier to predict, perhaps. And it makes decisions more easily. Fi can get very stuck with decision making, and low Te points to low efficiency or efficiency that comes in bursts, punctuating a generally drifting life). Fi vs Fe: A part of me, Fi dominant, is actually jealous of Fe types. Fe is all too simple, all feel good group-wise. I kind of like that. I wish I could have that. The good thing about strong Fi is that all is dependant on me, such as sense of self-worth and caring for my needs. I am acutely aware of that. But it can be rather selfish/self-focused. Fi vs Fi: And interestingly enough, despite the fact that I have strong values in life (and I am very individualist and idiosyncratic in values), it's often INFP that trigger me, because their value preferences go against mines! Finally, a note about Fi/Te combo: I went completely the ethical way in your hypothetical scenario (a crime is an ethical crime so it needs to face a consequence). However i do use Te too. If society data shows than forced long-term volunteer labour is better than prison, then I would support volunteer labour as an sentence.
To answer the question. I would put the person in jail for their crime because otherwise we have a precedent in where someone who commits a crime is completely forgiven and creates the opportunity for behaviours such as "I will rid the world of a particular person, my motives and reasons are not important, they could be completely out of envy for that person, and then I would become a good citizen. Since we have the precedent that someone who did the same was forgiven, I expect to be forgiven as well." and by that we allow crimes to be committed because the person who has committed them becomes and angel without taking into consideration what the isolated person could bring to society. If the person who committed the crime can change, so can the isolated person and who's to say that at some point in their life they would join the society and bring insights and help progress it? If the person who committed the crime cannot change, then the same applies to the isolated person, but in that case you have to ask yourself what kind of society it is where a criminal is not only forgiven but becomes a valuable member that society really is. Basically it would be saying "it is ok to remove isolated people because we deem them unworthy of their lives, just because they are not part of OUR society. And because you have done so, you have become more valuable.". It even encourages the act which degenerates in general allowance of crime as long as it is committed against certain groups of people. We already had that in our human history, we know how that turns out. On the other hand, you can ask why stop at one crime? Why not 2? What if someone goes on a savage cleansing operation to remove all isolated people on the planet and then become model citizens, would they be forgiven then? If not, why only an arbitrary number of crimes should be forgiven? If it is generally accepted then said society deems isolated people unworthy of their own lives although they have no impact on the society itself as they have isolated themselves from it. It doesn't see isolated people as humans anymore, they see them as something less and therefore are expendable. In short, the deed must be punished to not encourage it or at the very least, to not turn a blind eye to it and thus still marking it as unacceptable.
The whole point of jail is to force you to think about what you've done and forcefully 'make you a better person'. If the universe guarantees that the murderer will immediately start being a productive member of society, then the murderer has essentially already served his sentence and I absolutely agree with your fellow ENTP friend. -ENTP, lol
INFP here. In regards to your initial hypothetical question, for such an act I would keep tabs on that persons life, not saying anything while they went through their bettering humanity stage, however I would either personally or have it set up in my will in some sort of format, that as they were reaching the end of their life these revelations came to light. That way society still benefited from their input, but their dying days would not go without having the repercussions of their actions affect how they see and how they are seen by the world. Let each individual in the world impose their own individual fi on this perpetrator in the individuals last days.
INFP here. I actually think that the murderer shouldn't go to jail. I believe that justice for it's own sake is overrated and that prisons should act as correctional facilities instead of tools for people who had nothing to do with the case to have a justice wank. If we know that the murderer will end up being a good person, there's no real need to correct him, as he's clearly not evil, in fact et the resulting good may be a result of the murder he commited, the guilt he may have felt, and his own self reflection. I also don't trust the prison-industrial complex where I live, as it's set up to keep criminals incapable of living in a society, which leads to them commiting more crimes after they come out, which puts them in prison again to keep the tax money flowing. If our murderer ends up in one of those prisons, it's likely he'll end up being a worse person and, if he ever comes out, end up murdering someone again.
ENFP here. To the first question: Everyone has somebody who cares about them, and if they don’t then the person in question probably didn’t want to be alive in the first place. In my experience even the most introverted people still want somebody there
I feel like Fi forces me to form a opinion on everything. When I read a book, i always ask myself: is he good or bad? (meant in a very subjective way, not in the justice kind of way). For me, i like to know how i stand to things. The friend of my older infp sis told her, that she (infp sis) likes to have an opinion on everything, whereas the friend (entp) is just going through world, without feeling something abt everything. Oh yea, and i am enfp
Sometimes, a punishment is an act of justice towards the criminal, sometimes towards the victim, sometimes both. It depends on multiple factors whether a punishment is deserved, and what punishment is deserved. In this case, I think, the murderer deserves a punishment that would serve as a reminder of his crime for him throughout his life, but would not directly affect any other aspect of his free life
I definitely agree that Fi has the potential to be one of the most versatile functions. For example, I am an INFP that has a strong value for logic and results rather than a concept such as justice. I used to value the concept more than the results and used to make decisions based on what felt right, but my brother (200% ISTP😂) has had a strong impact on my values and has proven me wrong so many times I had a change of values.
even though i've already figured out my opinion on the murder hypothetical, i still think it's a great concept. anyway, i'd let the person go free. if i can get more details, my opinion might change. the phrasing implies that the murderer committed the crime out of their own will and not for any good reason. the actual amount of good is also unspecified. it doesn't say if this person just helps out a few people each week or if they're finding the cure for cancer. 'immense good' implies something closer to the latter. as much as i'd want them to go to jail, if they're saving a lot of lives, i'd be the one preventing those people from fully living their lives if i throw the murderer in jail. also, if the murder was committed so they could cause all that good, then i'd let them go free, but if it was out of hatred or jealousy, i'd be a lot less willing to let them free (unless, like i said above, they'll save a lot of lives). overall: murder committed out of hatred/jealousy/etc. = jail murder committed out of hatred/jealousy/etc. BUT they save a bunch of lives = no jail murder committed out of hatred/jealousy/etc. and their 'immense good' doesn't outweigh their malicious murder = jail murder committed so they could do good, save lives and whatnot (don't ask how they'd need to murder someone to do good, this is a hypothetical) = no jail
If they didn't offer anything objectively good, then society shouldn't punish the murderer. They simply take up useless space and I never understood why people would prioritise justice like this -isfp
I am an ENFP (Fi in 2nd function): I think the fact that the person going to be a proactive society member CANNOT cross out his action (these 2 events are unrelated). And the fact that the victim lost could be unnoticeable does not make him any less of a human. So YES he needs to take responsibility for the crime.
I was looking for a comment like this (fellow ENFP). In the scenario it's implying that because the person was a recluse and nobody close that they had no value and weren't entitled to live their life. I would argue they created a negative by removing someone from existence. It doesn't matter what the murderer did in the future, they have taken a life and must face justice.
The thing I'm hung up on is why people assume they can discern the direction where this crimimal's will go. He deserves jail because he chose to kill another person, and the law hands out punishments to set an example for others who might follow that man's path. The person who was killed does matter, whether their lives would've touched others or not. So I agree, the man is guilty and should recieve punishment. I don't know if the man who was killed could've done wonders to society had he lived but I don't feel that's what's important here, the crime that took place is what matters.
Fi also has to do with one's immediate impression of life. It need not be about grand ideas about justice or authenticity. When high Fi users are healthy, they are deeply impressed by life without actually going out and accomplishing feats. Whatever they do from that point on is primarily for their own leisure. Their accomplishments become a secondary matter.
As an INFP, the best way I can describe my experience of Fi is: It's kind of like those childhood games where someone hides a prize and tells you "You're getting warmer, you're getting cooler," as you approach and retreat from the thing. Only, you're saying that to yourself, 24/7, and during the times when you're "getting warmer," all roads seem to open to you, and when you're "getting colder," it hurts, and there's an urgent sense that you need to self-correct as soon as possible. What is the hidden object? I guess it's a sense of wholeness that also incorporates beauty, integrity, love, fairness, and just a sense that you're going in the right direction. But it isn't only based on self. I definitely have the feeling when interacting with people that I have to carefully maintain balance or else I'm going to hurt them, like I'm intuiting the "warmer/colder" thing for them based on what I assume they would feel. Would be interested if any other Fi users can relate to this description.
Im an ENFP and I believe that Fi can really value everyhting, I recently started valuing experiencing things in life, going out and doing stuff rather than just thinking about them which is a lot like Se. The reason I value this now is actually because of my Ne, I realized that the experiences you go through are often different than the visions you have in your mind and it's so interesting to see what those differences are and how that can open up to new possibilities
You as an enfp, I have been wondering how do you decide on morals , you just merely feel it ? Ok , as a ti user I sometimes would feel the mistakes in an idea but still need more time and input to define those mistakes or realise that i was wrong , so if your fi feels something how do you justify it in the beginning, is it always very clear to you why you feel this way and if not then how do you interpret your feelings or morals , is it te then? Because I have been thinking that fi is logical too and works in the same way as ti but with different inputs and thus outputs , based on my definition of logic as just comparisons using any criteria you want , so how do you compare ?
@@malakashraf2801 Hi Ti user :))) So as an ENFP I have Ne dom and Fi aux. This often results in me exploring different ideas and then asking myself, "How does this make me feel?". In a sense it is logical but it works on the basis of how good or satisfactory an action, idea or principle feels. I hope you can see how that is different from Ti because it does feel different intuitively but I can't put it in words. Fi justifies the value solely on how satisfactory it is in terms of feeling, what makes you feel good is dependant on your other functions and experiences in general tho. For example as ENFP, being open to as many possibilities is really valuable for me because using my Ne feels good. Its not only limited to this, like I said the ideas I explored also make me feel a certain way and those also result in values through Fi. These values go through Te to see which ones are the most efficient in terms of usage in the tangible world and personal satisfaction. This might be where the similarity to Ti comes from, it's not necessarily that Fi in itself is logical but combined with Te it becomes logical to an extent. This later goes through Si which makes me stick to those values even if they don't necessarily "make sense". This however is more a cause of conflict than anything for us ENFPs because Si is inferior and it causes conflict when unmonitored. Not sticking to values may make us feel insincere and inauthentic. I've rambled too much sry lmao (typical ENFP) but yeah this is how I experience Fi. Fi here only creates values based on feeling, if its going through a logical framework it might be more because of Te. You might see more conflict with logical filtration of the values with INFPs as they have Te inf
As INFP I value justice, truth, logic and beauty and strive to collect as many patterns of these in the world as I can, seeking ever more understanding.
One thing that I wonder: How would you comment on the potential Conflicts between Fi and Fe users vs the one between Ti and Te users? Is it quite simular or do you see larger differences?
@Kim Fabaceae you're missing what I'm asking. I'm not asking about the conflict between Te and Ti but about how that one differs from the conflict between Fi and Fe. Also, as a Ti user, your explanations have Te oversimplifications. Te isn't more efficient than Ti per se (and btw efficient=/=effective). It always depends on the context. I. E. When I learn a new topic and can draw parallels to other things I learned (which is quite often these days) I'm MUCH more efficient at learning it than your normal Te user would be. And faster at incorporating the information, because I reduce it to very little actually new information. And when bringing humanity forward. I'd argue that more of the ideas etc that have stuck with us were made by Ti users than Te users. They're not "for the individual", arguably while Te decisions tend to be more about and influence the immediate surrounding, the ones that are significant to the whole society are more likely Ti focused. It's just that such ideas are not very common, so most of the time yeah Te users are likely more productive. Also I'd argue against your claim that these functions are designed to emphasise a need to cooperate. There's far more effective ways of doing that, actually these differences work against cooperation. But when we do cooperate we get better results than if we were the same. We're looking at natural fluctuations in interests that evolution keeps at levels where they're the most beneficial to society. Meaning that people both have specific interests (be it because of Ti, Te or any other function) that drive society forward, but at the same time the fluctuations are kept at a level where, for the most part, people still are able to cooperate with each other good enough. And yeah, in the end it means the same. We should cooperate and learn from each other and ultimately a balanced approach is best.
...’ the person killed by this individual was *you* and in this scenario you had no family left’ ...I would add this as a follow up to the first question to see if anyone would change their answer.
I would not want them to be punished. I would still be dead either way, and I would rather have the murderer help a huge amount of people instead of having the murderer rot in jail and not do anything productive. -INTJ
didn't think this was unpopular but i agree with the ENTP friend, as an ESTP. the scenario is unrealistic obviously, bc it is hypothetical. but if ALL the conditions apply, i don't think the person should go to jail. that doesn't mean i don't value human life or approve of murder. but that person is dead. they're not here to be sad about their lack of recognition. nobody will miss them and hopefully the murderer will feel guilty 24/7 (since they never commit a crime again). objectively more good consequences to let the guy go free since he will do good stuff. you have to adapt your value system to specific cases!! also the point that the killed person could alsp have gone on to do good stuff is true but irrelevant since they are already dead in the scenario presented. thanks for reading :)
I agree! Though the scenario is pretty unrealistic, but if really everything applied, then yes - let this person do good for society. Suffering losses because of irrational decisions is, in my opinion, amoral, dangerous and destructive in and of itself. (As well as just being useless; needless and a hindrance to a well functioning society) (Intj)
I am an INTJ-T and I have seen that INTJ-As are much different than INTJ-Ts. I would like to see your videos on the differences between assertive and turbulent within each type.
I love my Fi demon. - INTP (I meant I love it to stay at the bottom.) Since i have inferior Fe, i do like to do what benefits groups (in certain cases) but at the same time prefer to stay alone and work alone and work on my own interests. Isnt that the opposite? also i think Ti and Fi are related, like really. Personally if someone comes to attack my values (i mean, everyone has values), i would use my Ti to explain why my values are logical and true and for the benefit of everyone. If they succeed in convincing me that their value is more beneficial and useful and true, i would start valuing it
I'm also an INTP and I don't live off of values. I sort of just use logic to determine what's right and what's not, not a specific set of values that I find really important
@@Master-dy7sh Yeah thats what i meant, i dont rely on values that i was raised on or that my friends believe and rely on, i determine my values based on logic, if i found a more logical one i would start relying on it. I dont know if you got me. Because afterall, the example he mentioned in the video (the murder) shows that (for me) certain situations need certain elaborating, u cant just rely on one value in all situations because it really may depend greatly. I think its injustice (if u want to consider values here as well) to rely on one value or set of values for all different situations
I paused the vid after you gave the scenario. Funnily enough, I went down the logical route of your ENTP friend, I understood that side, but at the end of the day, the person did commit the crime, and so should be punished accordingly. That's what I came to. As an INFP Also, I don't think I see Fe as disingenuous. I see it more as cute in a sense, because they put themselves over others and care about the harmony of the room a lot. I also care about the harmony of the room, but I feel uncomfortable if my Fi values are under threat basically
@@Kiseochan haha. To be completely honest, I find those with Fe polar like INTJs and with inferior Fe like INTPs a bit too annoying. To me they can sometimes come off as robotic. But when I find mature ones I love them lol. They're kinda cute when they try I guess
ISFP here. My answer to your first question, yes, even though it's a net good to society, a single person's life is still precious, what if that person was you, of course, it's hypothetical ;) My opinion to the last question, I agree. Like you've said, a high Fi user can value logic or emotion, joy or sadness, avoiding seeking power or seek it, being artistically skilled or not, but still enjoys it. I agree that it manifests in the greatest variety. ISFPs in particular have the greatest variety. One can be a potter, a sculptor, a writer, singer, painter, a soap spler, or anything, as long as the ISFP enjoys it
infp here, thanks for videos m8, FI can be a real bitch sometimes, especially when dealing with high TE users, cause even though i've learned to debate saying " it's my opinion" it doesnt change some objective facts. In general i struggle to debate with NT's exept for intp's maybe, they seem more prone to understading a certain point of view without making a huge debate over everything and are way more chill. I'm not remotely intersted in obectivity if its not part of a plan or a project when some others may seem to only think about whats the more logic side of things. Btw, love ye m8
I disagree with the ENTP for the first scenario, and I think people should always have free speech. I love what you said about Fi/Fe. I actually care about everyone as individuals even though I have Fe. As a collective we are made of individuals.
The grand existence is conscious and alive. There are infinite channels flowing forth in every direction from the core of that grand consciousness. And a speck of that grand consciousness exists in each channel that flows forth from the core, and so each speck experiences "individuality" while still being part of the One whole grand consciousness. The notion of "death" is a metaphor that explains the process of leaving one range (pattern) of frequencies to enter another--the individual remains as he or she was, they just now are in a different range of frequencies (pattern) than before.
Personally, I'd want that one Person, even if he contributes really good to society, to go to jail. Its just not fair for the other person. Also this scenario reminded me a whole lot of the song "Disappear" from the Musical Dear Evan Hansen. Maybe thats why this is my answere.
Intj here! I very much have a set of morals and values that drive me. I have been told I’m very opinionated to those few who I get into deeper convos with 😂😂
Same here. Its for this reason that my family do not like to have certain conversations with me and I've been told to just stay 'surface level' with them. Its frustrating, but its one of the things I love most about myself.
@@blackoceancreativeuniverse eh its gotten better, at least for myself over the years. I just don't take it too personally. And plus I have a couple of friends that will engage in meaningful conversation.
3 free men came to visit my class one day... they talked about their childhood experiences growing up, committing crimes, and their experiences serving time. Then they went on to say that after they were released they turned to volunteering their time to keep young kids from going down the same path. They also talked about how difficult it was to re-enter into society in the technological age and date/work again. Guess who didn’t get to share experiences? Be commended by a class for doing good? And be asked follow up questions about what their future looks like? You guessed it... the people that died. I’m an INTJ and the way I use Fi is that as I’m watching them laugh about what it’s like to enjoy life I begin to have the above questions float around... as I witness my classmates curiously ask them questions about who they are and what influenced them to change for the better I wonder if there is something deeply morally amiss here. Then I postulate a philosophy about how society sometimes overlooks valuing the wrong things... But then I experience another scenario where I encounter one woman who was capable of having a child and taking care of it... wanting to abort... meanwhile encountering another mother who was hooked on meth wanting to keep her child. Society will support the mothers right in either situation. Who will support the child’s right to a good life provided they are given the chance after conception? Again, what does society value here and what is society overlooking? How do I feel about this? I ask myself this. And then finally I land in a group of men with criminal backgrounds and I listen to them gloat and brag about how they got away with stuff... they laugh, reminisce, maybe reflect deeply enough to find a nugget of a lesson... I sit there and wonder... where are their children at and the single moms who are caring for their children because they all have children and yet they choose to talk about the glory days... again, Fi will ask... what am I doing here? I should be talking to and supporting the single moms who are raising these guys kids alone... they are struggling, they are likely tired and overworked, and are having to fight rearing their kids alone hopefully in the opposite direction of which they spawned from. Fi will tune itself to the answers of these questions then behavior aligns or re-aligns to create harmony in the self. Human life is valuable but society will pick and choose when to value it and what to value overall.
Ye, so? The murderer is paying by helping a huge number of people and not committing another crime. If you decide that he should be in jail, you don't value repentance. I am an ESTJ too
As an INTJ I was definitely split on that. The logic in the ENTPs answer was clear, but I think my Fi is decently developed (or at least regularly exercised and I respect/value it), and having those things clash leaves me confused My first reaction would probably actually be "How do you know these things?" Like how do you know they won't commit another crime. Bc unless you have some way of manipulating the fourth dimension I don't see how you can know lol
In response to the second question: As an INTJ with tertiary Fi I see it as a very versatile function. Fi is a way of being able to deeply reflect on yourself and know your core values, that being said those values could be anything so the first question is going to get a lot of varying answers.
If you can help, I have been wondering how do you decide on morals and values , you just merely feel it ? Ok , as a ti user I sometimes would feel the mistakes in an idea but still need more time and input to define those mistakes or realise that i was wrong , so if your fi feels something how do you justify it in the beginning, is it always very clear to you why you feel this way and if not then how do you interpret your feelings or morals , is it te then? Because I have been thinking that fi is logical too and works in the same way as ti but with different inputs and thus outputs , based on my definition of logic as just comparisons using any criteria you want , so how do compare ?
I'm an ENFP and every time I come across a question like the ones about the murder or free speech I can almost hear my Fi and Te fighting each other as I try to answer it, which can be very frustrating at times, since I often don't get to a final answer. What led me to conclude that the Fi is the more dominant one is that it's the one who wins more often, even though most of the times there is a tie, and Te also wins a considerable amount, but not the majority. (Btw I didn't come to an answer to either of the questions)
Hmm wonder if I’m an outlier? I see why he should be thrown in jail but I also see why he shouldn’t. I answered (with hesitation) that he shouldn’t be sent to jail 🤔
@@krispycorazon707 well, then where do you get off this slippery slope? By this reasoning, if you are enough of a 'net positive' in your life, any and all atrocities you commit are excusable, as long as they remain secret. Do you not find that appalling? I do.
As an INFP, I have been thinking that Fi was morally oriented, equating values with morals. I screwed that one up! Overuse of your first function can really blind you to the realities of the world. Studying cognitive functions reminds me of studying philosophy. I do love the clarity of your explanations!
As an infj.. I'd say yes to jail because put an end to a life can't stay unpunished, regardless whose life was...BUT...i first would like to know how the murder happened...does the murderer feel regret for his action...this could bring to let him free (with reserve)
I don't nessecearily think it's a weird question to ask yourself what feels right when making a decision in the sense of being fulfilled in what you're doing but it in the moral sense, I make more of those kinds of decisions based on what I think that actual impact of my actions will be on myself and others rather than having some sort of gut compass.
@@aprilw2287 You say that now, but what if I hid your chocolate and starches so well that you had to commandeer a passing whaling trawler to keelhaul their snacks? You'd look pretty silly trying to pull the "Dread Pirate Roberts" routine without your tricorner hat!
ENFP here. Even though I can say I align with my Fi a lot and work strongly with my moral values, I also know that it cannot be applied to every situation (maybe). So then that's when my Ti comes in and tell me what action will benefit the situation the most, most of the time it fits within my values created by my Fi, other times it doesn't. In these scenarios, I would ditch my Fi to make the action that would benefit the most people and have the most pros.
I understand the sentiment behind the 2 questions you posed at the end, but to me, they make Fi seem more like a “wannabe” function. Let’s take the example of you saying a high Fi user highly values logic, which implies they value using Ti. Unless the person has Ti high in their stack, they probably struggle in some way to use it. So Fi might value Ti and try to use it on a daily basis, but that doesn’t mean they’re using it well, or even correctly. I see Fi in the same manner as Ti, as in the way the person builds it internally (just like your example of a web they build throughout their life). Both functions go through True/False conclusions rapidly, but one uses thoughts and the other uses feelings/morals/values; one asks “what do I THINK,” and one asks “how do I FEEL.” I think that high Fi users who value and use “logic” are not really using their thoughts to come to a conclusion; since they so easily wield Fi, they convince themselves that their feelings are the same as rational, unbiased thought, and they call it logic. In conclusion, Ti is unbiased thought (logic), and Fi is biased thought (feelings). So... the answer to both questions I guess are no. I think the same analysis above can be applied to any other function, too.
Feeling is a highly evolved programmable decision engine, too. When feelers feel like it, they can be just as rational as thinkers are. Some feelers even feel like being rational most of the time. Let us consider the classic case of the high Fi user who meticulously calibrates his Fi to decide when he feels like the theory of gravity ought to apply, which is all the time, except in the presence of a girl he's deliriously attracted to, where he feels like he can defy physics and fly. Who does the thinker think she is to distress his mind with thoughts of injury and death? Let the versatile boy make his own decisions! It's part of his charm.
I've heard this type of theoretical murder question labelled as "a moral conundrum". What right does any random person have to decide that they'll murder someone because they want to? That's crazy talk. As the question is asked/worded: From a moral standpoint, no it's not OK. From a legal standpoint, it's not OK. From a medical standpoint, it's not OK. From a military standpoint, as the question is asked, it's not OK. Straying from the murder question a little, there are some very specific exceptions where death might be considered OK. I can separate theoretical morals from theoretical logic, but we live in reality. Peace. (Edit: I didn't really answer the question but it is an answer)
Lol he wasn't asking if you thought murder was ok. In fact, saying the murderer should go free doesn't even mean you're condoning murder. Someone could say, this murderer absolutely deserves to go to prison, but that one person getting what they deserve isn't as important as a larger net benefit to society. Questions like this are designed to figure out how you make decisions. Here's a REAL life example of a similar ethical conundrum. There was a Nazi doctor who did experiments on prisoners, and there was a question whether this research should ethically be used, because the knowledge he learned could actually help people. Logically, using his research after the fact is not the same as giving someone the green light to go ahead and do such things, but it might feel like you're condoning it. But you might put aside those feelings if you could measurably help people, reasoning that there's nothing you can do to help the ones he killed, and you might as well make lemonade out of lemons. This same line of reasoning could be used in the hypothetical murder question, it's just not the greatest hypothetical.
yes definitely. funny how I was just thinking about your question! 😆. it's how we're all still different despite having same functions. one could value a less moral and another could value something more human, and they'd both still be fi. so it's interesting
The question "does this feel right to me?" actually helps me cement the fact that I am an INTJ and not INFJ. This very question made me quit a university program not once but twice, and now I'm on a lifepath that fits me so much better.
Once I've read that INTJs are like humans disguised like robots, and INFJs robots disguised like humans. For me, it's the best analogy I could think of to explain the difference between both. As an INFJ, I've never questioned myself about what feels right, but what will work the best for my purposes, but since my projects are oriented to people I guess there's where all the stereotypes come from. Good luck in your path! University it's only worth if you love academia, and even then is not the only way. I wish you're always where your heart feels right.
@@Hari-kx2er an infj would ask "what is the meaning behind this or that path?" and "is there any meaning to me in this?"(combo NI+TI) more than "what will work for my purposes"
@Francis Ngo "What works for my purposes" to put it more precisely is both Te and Fi. "What works" section is the Te and "my purpose" is the Fi. It requires a high Te combined with at least non inferior Fi. Hence why it precisely is an INTJ statement as INTJ has a non inferior Fi with high secondary Te. The dominant Ni further shows the path for the Tertiary Fi.
I feel like Fi and Ni are those very vague functions that are super hard to understand and explain unless in conjunction with other functions manifested in a particular type... Fi particularly, I haven't looked as much into Ni but it's often described as deep, profound and "mystical", where to my understanding it's just a more focused, specific and deliberate inward-facing Ne
Yeppers re high Fe use being problematic for me (ENFP), a big Fi person. It's consistently the only source of conflict between my otherwise very close ENFJ and INFJ pals and I. Luckily our shared love of harmony and mutual respect get us over those humps, but they're never going to understand my adoration of INTJs and their beautifully blunt Fi. Same pals constantly also want me to date Fe types, and it just isn't going to happen. You can't ask me who you are and expect me to fall for you. For me, Fi is simply "To thine own self be true." That IS my highest value.
And in an ironic twist, high Fi users probably spend more time thinking about their feelings than actually feeling them \:D/
The accuracy of this comment!!!! This is so so so true!! Maybe it's due to lower Te, and not wanting to be active with our feelings?
Omg.. so true.
When something happens, I start to wonder "what am I feeling?"
why be happy when you can think about being happy?
I'd say xNFx think about feeling, and xSFx feel feelings. That would make sense
Yes!!
INFJ here: I could never - or wouldn't ever want to - live in a world, where a life doesn't matter. Even if they had no one, their life is still not worthless. For me, there would still need to be a punishment.
The person who was murdered was a valuable human life whether or not anyone ever noticed. If you do not believe that, I don't know how to explain that to you... And maybe the person even would go on to achieve something special or have an impact on someone else's life.
And even if they don't, we still all impact each other in some way, even if it's just smiling at someone on the street, making their shitting day a little better.
It's kinda horrible to think that anyone would define other people's lifes and value. You don't have to "deserve" to live (or stay alive and not randomly be killed).
And that other person who still have commited a horrible crime. How could anyone be okay with someone walking around who did that? Even if you ignore the part about the victim, that still does something to the murderer and leaves a stain on them forever. And if they are unimpactet - how horrible is that? Not being impacted by killing someone. That's a psychopath.
Who even are they to think they could be the judge of the worth of someone else's life.
@@lilalakritzengel I agree, but what if there is genuine repenting involved? People do change after all.
@@timefortee I would say a lesser punishment if they are truly sincere but only if they are genuinely repenting some people say or fake that they have repented but haven't actually done so. Say instead of going to prison they get a big fine or community service.
Agree that their life is valuable but what does that have to do with punishment? The person remains dead in any case. The only thing we're deciding is whether another person goes to jail or not.
@@thecommenter2711 That would obviously mean we have to all rethink our entire philosophy and system in more regards than just this one. So why do we not stick to the given framework ;)
A murder is a murder, there's no getting around it. Doesn't matter if he helps more people, if it were to be at the cost of someone else's life
-INTJ
Man this is what called strong Fi
INFP: My mind has been blown! I have always wondered if I was really an INFP since I've always valued logic but that was more Ti. I've finally realized that I have Fi and just really value logic!! It's really been bothering me for a while!
That makes both of us. Knowing that Fi can value anything has relieved me of the "What's my mbti type?" crisis.
Haha, I figured that was the case with me. INFP with adhd. Always liked math and logic b/c they make sense. When I'm being impulsive though I do things that make no logical sense and I do them b/c they feel right. For instance, I noticed today "I am a gym rat at home depot with platinum blonde dyed hair with arm falls of plants... people must think I'm insane. Oh well"
I was typed as an INTP by MBTI; my therapist was adamant I was an INFP... I accept my Fi more now
As an INFP I value logic and use both logic and emotion to grid values. I employ logic- Lol, I just don’t enjoy logic for the fun of it. Logic puzzles and Sudoku annoy me
Yes! I have an infp mom who is not very logical. She doesn't value logic. On the other hand, I have an isfp friend who is very logical and values logic. Both fi doms.
As an INFP, I'd say the best way to describe Fi is to see it as a kind of compulsion or addiction to honouring your deepest feelings at any cost. Basically, If I take any action that feels inauthentic, goes against my values and ideals and just doesn't fit with the life I want to live then it feels like I am stabbing myself in the gut and lying to myself which causes anxiety and depression. I need to live out my emotional and subjective truths to be truly happy even if my actions seem strange to others or reality whacks me across the head for my temerity to turn my daydreams into reality. It means some of my actions can come across to others as coming out of the blue or lacking logical consistency. But there is an emotional logic behind every action I take and that is that I want to feel most fully myself, to be authentic and live life on my own terms and to avoid the pain I feel from doing the sensible thing when my heart is calling out to me to do the opposite. When it comes to a choice between doing the sensible thing or following my heart, I must follow my heart such is the price of Fi.
“Being misunderstood is a perpetual Fi problem.”
YES. I can attest to that 100%.
(INFP here)
I asked my ISTJ father about the murder and if he would send him to prison.
He said yes. Yes, because that's just disgusting how some people think in society, they're are better or more important than others and therefore are allowed to not go to prison. Everyone who did a crime needs to get punished, no matter how "awesome" they are.
ISTJs are awesome, I'd say.
I agree. I have a best friend who is an istj and she is one of the best people I've ever met.
@@dooferfis Yes somehow I get along the best with ISTPs and ISTJs. I love their coolness and their humor :))
Strangely, I'm an ENFP. People say, ENFPs get along the best with INFPs or INFJs, but honestly, whenever I talk to my INFJ friend, I feel like I could hurt her with any word I say. I have to be so careful with her, but with the ISTJs and ISTPs I know, it's kind of the opposite, so I enjoy that haha
This is the same thought I had in mind. It doesn't matter if that person was a nobody. He probably had some great things waiting for him in life, but noone would know since he was killed. And the murderer should be punished regardless. He took someone's life pointlessly and should feel remorse
ESTJ here: The murdered person had 1 loved one- themselves. If it were my life on the line, it would matter to ME! The best course of action I can think of would be to create a social campaign of sorts, using this person's picture and as much personal information about them as I could garnish (those little details that we can all relate to) and plaster it all over social media to help their community get to know them...at which point they would hopefully become "valuable" enough to regain entry into our justice system.
Really appreciate the Fi videos... it's like studying your worst subject in school in a language you can barely speak lol, but I can relate and it is helpful.
As a ENFP I recognize Fi as being forced to check how u feel about everything u perceive and interact with. Much like Te/Ti with Ne/Ni. Then put these checks into frameworks with Ne, and create large webs of emotional logic. Its a inconsistent and bizarre realm, were things are rewired based on the potency of feeling rather than what makes sense. Very non-rigid, unpredictable and beautiful. Quite a bit of my core values stem in Te though. I like to think Ne is a somewhat balanced mix of the two.
I love the words “emotional logic.” I’m an INFP, and I’m a goofball and a dreamer, but also very logical and serious at the same time.
Hi ZNac
When someone hurts me with his words or deeds it's like there's a fight in me like was he/she right was he/she wrong/ my opinions kinda oscillate at this point/ , over the time my indecisiveness with this issue gets weaker and weaker and I reach the point where nobody can change my mind...that's how I get extremely stubborn with my opinions. /enfp/...that's why i do hold grudges
I have just visited your channel and I am so proud of you as an enfp
But also so so disappointed
Your chaos knows no limits (i am not really disappointed you are very cute)
Yes haha I call it the "check yourself" function. Because we are perceivers first. Alot of times that is manafesting for me as me deciding whether or not it is a good idea (Fi) to poke the "beehive" (Ne).
Plot twist: The person who was murdered was in the process of writing one of the greatest books ever written.
Secondary plot twist (nah, just my Fi judgment): The person who was murdered was a valuable human life whether or not anyone ever noticed.
Exactly!
This dilemma is so strong!
Re: primary plot twist - the person may finish his/her book in jail. Ever heard of Varg Vikernes?:))))
@appletree Tertiary plot twist- the author's magnum opus will be more popular after his demise, because many great artists are not fully appreciated in their own lifetime.
@@maggis0 I meant the person who got killed, not the killer. But a lot of writers and thinkers seem to have been inspired by jail...I guess there's lots of time to think!
Why did he murder? Was in a bad mood and took it out on this guy? Was there an argument that went out of control? Did the murderer feel any remorse?
- INFJ
If the guy was so unimportant, why kill him in the first place?
EXACTLY my thought/question - INFJ
To add on from my ISFP view
How did it feel? How do you feel? Are you thinking of it often? Do you feel different? More empowered? Disgusted?
Did the murderer feel any remorse? Was the victim ready to go? What was the point? Does the murderer contribute more to society out of guilt? Is life only valuable if it affects other people? How crule was the murder? I have many questions and I'm not sure what my answer is
I want to know too, I just want to know
What if the person who was murdered, had he lived, could offer more to society than his murder? We could never know, so potentially the murder harmed society istead of helping them. Therefore, the murder should be punished.
-ENTJ
Could not have said this better myself.
But, who gets to decide what "value to society" means? This is SO dangerous!
I agree. I think there should be more insight into the meaning of the "greater good", because in that case, it's quite diaphanous.
- infp
@@meagiesmuse2334 i know, thats why the murderer should be punished.
Exactly!
Well, here's my ISTP answer: Yes, I would put him in jail, because there is no way to know he would never commit another crime, and has demonstrably proven himself capable of murder. I reject the latter half of the hypothetical because decisions aren't made with all of the information that exists, only what is available. You want me to decide, and the only way to know he would never commit another crime is to wait until he dies. So why put anyone in jail, by that reasoning? Why are two crimes proof of guilt, but only one crime is not? Do we all have one "free" murder, as long as we know in our hearts we'll never commit another crime, and we make sure we just kill the "right" victim? You don't need strong Fi to see how harmful such a concept could be.
Yes, but he explained that the reasoning behind why you’d imprison the murderer could be Fi-based. I’m INFP, and I would send him away because she has transgressed the sacredness of life in a hostile and needless way. He could perhaps be understood and rehabilitated at a later time, but my initial instinct is that despite the social invisibility of the murder’s victim, what the killer did is wrong; and thereby, he must be punished for it.
@@atmodlee I still see my reasoning as being primarily pragmatic. I do believe in justice and fairness, and that does play a part in my reasoning, but everyone values something. The ENTP given in the video values the greater good, which is a use of Fi, but the decision in the end will tend to be decided by the higher functions: Ti and Se in my case.
As an INTP I think along simular terms. At least to your start.
In the end guilt is an abstract concept that's meant to bring human society forward. Punishing him because he's guilty is no valid reason on its own for me.
Guilt is just a mechanic that evolved to show what's best for society as a whole.
It's about what comes after, and the picture Nathan drew is inconsistent when there's no punishment. It means I. E. the murderer didn't learn anything and is likely to do more crimes.
this is why I like ISTPs. No B.S.
@@9SMTM6 "Guilt," on its own, is an insufficient metric. Rule of law, on the other hand, is more important for us to honor, because life without it is pre-modern at best, ill-suited for modern material circumstances.
However, it's not necessarily true that legal punishment equals learning one's lesson. If the murderer has reflected on the act, he may regret it deeply and never actually be in danger of committing another crime. But is education really the purpose of punishment? If someone is willing to murder as an adult, no amount of jail time will teach them otherwise.
I’m an INFP and my best friend is ESFJ. in group social settings she’d usually be the one with higher energy and assertion, but when it comes to touchy and more personal topics in conversation i become more dominant. it’s cute haha
I'm an INFP and I say the person who murdered should at least serve some jail time because a murder is a murder no matter what and every life has some worth. It doesn't mean you have to arrest the person for life but he should at the very least serve jail time.
Same. I am also an INFP
I agree! Another fellow INFP here. - They should face the consequences of their own actions. Murder is still murder, and yes lives hold worth/value so they should pay for the commited crime. With no chance of parole.
As a Ti and a fellow Si user, assuming there's no incredibly intricate story behind that murder such a murderer being such a value to society without issues while not seeing consequences for their actions seems inconsistent.
INTP agreeing with you 100%
@@9SMTM6 Right! Is it possible to be valuable to the society on the one hand while being able to murder somebody on the other and if so, to what extent?
-infp
ISFP here.
The person needs to go to jail. Murder is murder.
About freedom of speech. It comes with responsibility. I hate when people uses freedom of speech as an excuse to hurt people on purpose or just want to provoke to get attention.
ENTP: Free speech!
As an INFP, I agree. Although i could advocate for a remission of sentence, given the circumstances.
I would personally have freedom of speech to an extent. If someone were to use freedom of speech to deceive people then i wouldn't allow it.
@@eviekai I agree with you on that
I agree with you...
INFP
As an ENFP, I think I'm eligible to answer that, yes , Fi is indeed an extremely versatile function(atleast in my case). When it comes to subjects that require logic, my "feeling" tells me that it needs to be dealt with logic and not with feelings, although I may "feel" like I need to take a particular decision due to my gut feeling, there's a louder voice calling out, saying that it's just not right to be illogical, it forces me to ask a trusted one for giving me logical conclusions incase I am not able to do it myself.
I think the versatility of Fi is the reason INFPs are often mistyped, especially early in life. Their Ne means that they are easily influenced when they don't have concrete values and can believe anything. As a kid and even now, I valued logic and was able to do very well in school because I valued learning and was naturally good at adapting information and taking tests. I and the people around me thought I was an INTP or an INTJ for the longest time. I have also seen INFPs that value practicality or stoicism, which makes them very grounded and different from the usual image of an INFP.
I have been wondering , how do you decide on morals , you just merely feel it ? Ok , as a ti user I sometimes would feel the mistakes in an idea but still need more time and input to define those mistakes or realise that i was wrong , so if your fi feels something how do you justify it in the beginning, is it always very clear to you why you feel this way and if not then how do you interpret your feelings or morals , is it te then? Because I have been thinking that fi is logical too and works in the same way as ti but with different inputs and thus outputs , based on my definition of logic as just comparisons using any criteria you want , so how do you compare ?
@@malakashraf2801 People describe Fi as dealing with “values” and how one “values things.” To me this appears to describe a process a priori to logical reasoning. Similar to what is described in metamathematics as “mathematical intuition” (sorry for using the word intuition with a different context and meaning from mbti). A mathematician can’t prove or disprove Euclid’s fifth postulate, only examine the geometries that emerge from using it or substituting something else. So in a sense, yes, you can use Ti or Te to interrogate values or morals, in that you can institute a first principle and then examine the emergent system.
(Film spoilers!)
An example is the film Everything Everywhere All At Once. The main character is faced with the question, “is existence preferable to non-existence?” Neither Joy nor Waymond make logical cases, and Evelyn must decide how she “values” existence. The consequences of either choice are played out in the multiverse.
I went through the same process
I’m an entp (strong Fe) dating an isfp with really strong convictions (Fi). The Fi-Fe clash struggle is real. I have to tell myself to just stay quiet after I’ve expressed myself once so it doesn’t do into a toxic circuitous flow that achieves nothing.
Was the killing done in self defense or defense of another? Or was is a straight murder? Straight up murder, then jail. There are always other angles/variables to consider.
Edit: Free speech needs to exist, even if you don't always agree with someone, they may have valid ideas. Some ideas need to be shared.
As an ISTP, I would dismiss the story in itself, because it is unrealistic to predict the outcome of their life.
If it were “murder” than it was an unlawful killing by definition. “Self-defense”. Would be “justifiable homicide”. ✝️
If the victim was a recluse and never interacted with people then it's unlikely he'd be in a situation where someone has to defend themselves against him. It's highly likely it was a justifiable homicide. That being said I still wouldn't arrest him. Injustice will always exist, greater injustices than that.
@@Snarl_Marx why do you think being a recluse means they wouldn't defend themselves?
@@SirThanksalot_1 the question is about the guy who killed him. It's unlikely that his reason for killing him would be self defense because it's unlikely the recluse would attack him in the first place. Sorry, I probably could have worded things better lol
For the question, I'd go for the second answer. It's not fair for the person who was murdered. Plus, the law shouldn't be negotiable in that sense. Yes, context matters, but our contribution to the society should have nothing to do with it. If we started implementing that kind of reasoning to the law, oh boy, the domino effect wouldn't be fun at all.
True...and I think this reasoning does enter in more often than it should, if we evaluate someone's worth based on their connections and wealth and treat unfortunate "losers," like the victim in this scenario, as collateral damage.
The way you describe FI makes almost sound like something I would be strong in (seeking authenticity , strong values). But I'm an ISFJ. I guess it's just my SI+FE fooling me, because my typical ISFJ "traditional values" happen to be sort of 1800s anarchist ones, so they might seem singular and eccentric to other's but I truly feel myself that it is something traditional and with a strong heritage. But then you always say we can all come to the same destination in different ways. But INFPs are consistantly my favourite people so I guess I appreciate FI in others.
Mmm of course everyone value things in their life no matter what type they are , maybe we infps remind you your own values and dreams matter when you wanna sacrifices or ignore them because of your Fe approaches ☺️😊
As an INTP with a belief in implicit values, and who doesn't think it's at all weird to ask whether something feels right, I'm struggling with how to process this video content. Of course, I don't actually trust that something is right for me just because it feels right, but the "feel" part of the decision-making process can be a way of listening to my intuition, and I have learned over the years that I have a fairly trustworthy intuition in certain (unfortunately) narrow domains. To me, this is just a partially inaccessible part of my thinking process. Perhaps I'm deluding myself, but that's how I've seen it.
My belief in implicit values is perhaps a more interesting issue. To me, the idea that there is no such thing as absolute truth is an affront to the implicit value of logical thinking. And I do not see a significant distinction between standing on a foundation of logical truth and standing on a foundation of moral truth. Sure, this begs the question of where that foundation comes from, and perhaps a high Fi user might care less about answering that question than a high Ti user, but I'm not sure that holding to implicit values is inherently an Fi thing.
This!
I think the word ‘values’ as it is used in the Myers Briggs world is tricky. My INTP sibling, who I love to analyze (and vice versa) seems, to me, to judge things using her internal logic system... which makes sense. But she perceives these conclusions so be her ‘values’, and I don’t disagree. I think there are different kinds of values about different things and some are T derived and some are F derived. With her and I it has become almost something we can predict. Even when we profess to the same ‘value’ very often the ~reason~ we seem to value it is very different... and it almost always falls along T and F lines. Many of the ‘values’ we deeply and viscerally disagree on end up falling along T/F lines. I tend to be trusting or ambivalent about individual people and mistrust systems, and that informs my ‘values’ (capitalism and societal expectations and standards, etc etc). She is trusting or ambivalent about systems and mistrusts people (these people who made this system are the problem, they want something from this and I don’t like it).
I guess what I’m trying to say is that my theory is the conscious ‘values’ of an Fi dom are based on a visceral ‘gut’ conclusion where those of a Ti dom are based on their logical conclusion. The Ti dom consciously ‘values’ what ‘just makes sense’ to them just as the Fi dom ‘values what feels right to them’. I’m gonna go further and posit that they are simply using a different logic system (if we want to really go there I suspect it might be right-brain (in the Iain McGilchrist sense of the term) processing in the F function). The Ti dom will have values they aren’t as consciously aware of that will come from their inferior Fe (traditional societal roles or something) and the Fi dom will have not fully conscious values based in their inferior Te (following safety rules, etc). These are inferior so they won’t be identified as values, or at least not strong values if you ask, and the person won’t be good at them... but if you watch closely I think you’ll see a trend in their tendencies.
Oh, and those examples perplex me to the point that I almost can’t even engage with them. The murder one - I kinda just don’t care. My biggest thought is “what led to this person having no friends, family, or contact with society?”. Although I totes can get behind the hermit idea... it seems like society failed that person and that bugs me more than the murder. Maybe they are better off dead (harsh as that sounds)? But if they were happy with their life then I’d have srong feelings about the murderer and what they did... but really that seems unrelated to whether they go to jail or not, given the premise as it is laid out. I am also not in a position to make this sort of call - thus at a certain point I just get bored of the questions. They are stripped of humanity. Call me when you want me to judge a real situation (and your gonna have to give me a helluva lot more context). Maybe I lose interest in this example because it doesn’t hit on any of my personal strong values. With another thought experiment I might have an immediate and strong answer? 🤷🏽♀️
Love this so much
It's interesting how in english 'think' and 'feel' are used interchangeably a lot of the time
High Fi and Ti users both benefit from being really sure of themselves and individualistic, although maybe in different ways. At the end of the day you got an introverted judging function at the top of your stack
@@notjohn2672 yes, I’ve noticed that too! As an INFP who had a medical career where I was surrounded by STs and NTs, they seemed to respect my decisions more if I said ‘I think ....’ instead of ‘I feel’ (or at least that was my impression, maybe I was just projecting my own insecurities and mirroring their word choices). Either way I noticed over the years that I’d trained myself to use the word ‘think’ but if I use it for a decision/judgement that I am strongly grounded and certain about ‘think’ gives me a slight bit of cognitive dissonance and ‘feel’ just… feels better. (LOL)
The OPs comment about learning to trust their intuition in certain narrow domains is interesting. It rings of the ‘gut’ feeling, the thing that we often label as ‘F’... the "I can’t give you a list of reasons, I just know that this is right" decisions. I am really curious (Brent Johnson if you are reading this please chime in) whether these domains have any sort of pattern to them and, because I’m testing a theory, whether they fall into Fe territory?
My theory is that 'values' is not at all an F thing, but is really just decisions we believe in strongly that are drawn from our two judging functions with their preferences and strengths. Because humans are social creatures I think these all end up eventually being framed in the context of society which them makes them sound 'F'-ish.
So as an INFP I draw my more clear and obvious values from my Fi but also some ‘values’ from my inferior Te, and INTPs will do the same with their inferior Fe. For an INTP This could manifest in decisions or judgements that FEEL really solid but for which they cannot easily discern a path of logic that led to it (at least not one that follows their Ti logic). My suspicion is that these will tend to relate to people/society and if examined closely will have an underpinning that can be traced to Fe.
As an INFP this manifests in discovering that I actually hold a lot of respect for Te rules and structures (and in this I’m using respect in the 'values' sense of the word). You have to have some respect for something to notice it and take pleasure in subverting it, or to feel an obligation toward it. I subconsciously feel compelled to follow ‘the rules’ which also means I tend to feel shame or exhilaration when I break them (based on how my Fi sees the situation). My INTP sibling doesn’t have the same relationship with Te… but man do I see it in her with Fe!
I would describe Fi as 'self-awareness'
INFJ here.
I would rather pull out more information about why that person killed someone before making a decision.
If it's a good reason; no imprisonment. If it's a bad reason; at least some form of punishment rather than imprisonment because I also agree with your ENTP friend.
EXACTLY!
@@CupcakesX YES!
In real cases like this there is usually not enough proof either way, claims are made but they can't provide sufficient proof. That's why I say the guy deserves capital punishment, nobody should care about "the good of society" more than a random hermit individual's life being extinguished.
We also have to be careful to not get into the victim blaming mindset, like "oh what were the killer's motives? Were they good enough by my unbiased standards?" Usually the murderers have brain damage and no logic behind their actions. They aren't people to be understood or sympathized with.
Source: true crime addict
It's always about those unknown variables. Perhaps that reclusive loner was some weird psycho who would harm someone in the future or has done so already, perhaps he was someone who would have done something amazing with his life. That's the problem with questions like that, too many unknown variables.
I disagree with the entire premise of the murder scenario. Even if hypothetically all of it could have physically happened, it’s impossible that the act of murdering someone didn’t have even the slightest psychological effect. If they were any moral person, they’d be internally crushed by guilt for what they’d done, preventing them from being a functioning member of society. If they didn’t feel guilt, they obviously are some kind of psychopath or have other problems of some sort, and therefore wouldn’t either be a functioning member of society. Also, religion definitely plays a role in someone’s answer. Even if someone doesn’t logically believe that justice must be carried out in this situation, they may choose that answer anyway due to religious beliefs. I’m an INFJ btw.
I was thinking the same thing. I can't see a cold-blooded murderer being such a positive person for the rest of their life. Best I could see happening was the person becomes a philanthropist or something as a means to assuage their guilt.
@@purplekitti5784 and what if their guilt leads to an attornment leads to exponentially greater good that the murderer offers the world? To assume that the guilt would be so crippling to the point that they wouldn't function is one possibility but not certainty; there are murderers and rapists and all kinds of criminals who go on to lead "normal" lives after rehabilitation. We also fail to realize that the murderer could add good to the world INDIRECTLY by being a force of evil or non-good simply by existing. Must the murderer be the person who actively brings about the good for us to justify the murder, or is it enough that through their life and ONLY their life, some force of good comes about? Do we as humans even have a wide enough scope of the entirety of the world and humanity to judge such things? That's a rhetorical question.
- INFJ
You know, you make a good point. The people that find the body and have to clean it up will also be negatively affected by all this. The police investigating the crime would have to decide how diligently they are willing to pursue justice on this case, the autopsy people would have to thoroughly examine physical evidence, the people who take position of the mans home are going to disclose the events that transpired to potential buyers, and the killer gets to live the rest of his life never having to face consequences for his bad actions. A lot more people have been hurt here than just the murder victim. The killer needs to be punished.
@@Takisan111 Actually, the stipulation was that "no one" would be affected by his death, so I'm guessing that means people cleaning up.
The more you go into this, the more it turns into a paradox, rather than a plausible argument. Oh well.
You're presenting a false dichotomy here. You assume the murderer would either be "internally crushed by guilt...preventing them from being a functioning member of society" or a psychopath who experiences no feelings of guilt whatsoever and who wouldn't be a functioning member of society. There is a lot of room in between those two ends of the guilt-feeling spectrum. Two people will experience guilt in different ways and to varying degrees, even if they've done the same guilt-producing act. For me--an INTP--negative emotions are easily compartmentalized, which means I put them in the "information" file. The pain I experience from stubbing my toe on a table leg is merely informing me that I need to watch where I'm going. I don't like how stubbing my toe feels, and I don't like the way guilt feels, so I avoid stubbing my toe and doing again whatever it is that produced the guilt. Feeling perpetual guilt (to the point where it would be debilitating) is like intentionally and repeatedly stubbing my toe (to the point where I'd have to get my foot amputated) to remind me of something I already know. Redundant and unnecessary. That isn't to say that every once in a while, when it gets cold and damp, my toe doesn't still feel the old injury. Pangs of guilt still come and go in the same way, but just because someone doesn't feel guilt to the same level you might feel it or to the level you think is "appropriate", that doesn't mean they are amoral. Good people can do bad things.
This is by far the most helpful video I've seen. I've always had trouble differentiating between Fi and Ti, Te and Se.
high Fe with high Fi can work superbly in my experience (especial type INFJ here)
INFP is easy
ENFPs are chaos but fun
Sure there's conflict, but there's also conflict within Fi users. In a lot of ways Fi needs Fe and vice versa. That's also probably true for all the other functions, opposites attract
Yes I would put him in jail. A crime is still a crime and people have to be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. - ENFP
That's interesting. I'm also an ENFP but I wouldn't throw him in jail. Injustice is an inescapable part of existence, unfortunately.
@@Snarl_Marx same!!
ʕ·ᴥ·ʔ
Your an ENFP with high Fe :)
@@honeybeecindy5206 yeah, that sounds about right
@@Snarl_Marx while it is inescapable i also belive that a human life is always worth protecting
The thing is some people percept opposite or different values as "no values", which is factually wrong. So the last part about Fi being anything is highly appreciated.
Re: Murderer - He should be TRIED, but the circumstances should be evaluated before imprisoning him. It could have been accidental. It could have been provoked. Or who knows. To simply let him continue in society because he does great things for it dismisses not only the value of the hermit who died, but it sends the message that basically anyone in society is expendable so long as their deaths don't interrupt "good" people, as well as saying that you're allowed to get away with murder just because you're "good".
Re: Free speech - It's pretty darned destructive as things are right now. XD You can still value something that is good even if there are some people who use it irresponsibly. This is just pretty standard in life, imo.
Re: "Being misunderstood is a perpetual Fi problem." - Oh hell yeah, it is!
Re: Fi vs Fe - Yeah, Fi users can often view Fe's as being "fake" just so other people get along with them, and Fe's can think Fi's are "opinionated" or judgemental. Both *can* be true in some instances, but those assumptions are just as likely to be illusions.
-- "intentionally going against group harmony" - Oh, believe me, it's not intentional. We usually have no idea there's such a thing as "group harmony" and can't track it once we find out it exists. XD XD XD
Re: "Moved by the plights of individuals" - Very useful thing, to be concerned about the marginalized and the underdogs among us. :3 That way we can do something about it.
Re: "Those values might be anything." - YES. It's weird when I see other Fi's defending against the idea that "so-and-so was xxFP" by asserting "But so-and-so was a known liar, and xxFPs absolutely HATE lying and hypocrisy!" Sure, many of us do, but let's say the only way you have ever seen the world was as a hostile entity that will continue to bar your path as long as it's aware of your transparent actions/ behavior, than an Fi user can easily be drawn to the idea of using lies as a tool, especially if they can come up with ways to justify it. (Speaking as one who went through a period like that, and also have known LOTS of FPs who lie a maddening amount.)
- ENFP
The person who killed another human should be in jail, given it wasn’t self defence. I wouldn’t correlate someone’s value to the amount of people who knew and loved them. I think this makes the crime worse in fact because it insinuates that they’re meaningless. I think they deserved more.
As an Fe user, I'm jealous of how Fi seems so sure all the time
Someone's value is how much they're contributing. From what the problem says, the person isn't. We know that they're at least close to meaningless by how the problem was posed. Why do you think they deserve more?
@@notjohn2672 I am usually very unsure, nothing is absolute. However, i am very sure i disagree with your point of view. Comparing someone's worth to a societal idea of contribution is naïve at best and inhumane at worst. Worth transcends society, society is merely a means to prevent chaos.
To put it in a way that may perhaps ignite your Fe, this guy, you're referring to as having little meaning, evidently has had such a horrible life, no one and no hope and to top it off he ends up being murdered and never getting justice. I don't think the murderer deserves the glory of his possible future accomplishments, give it enough time and someone else will probably come up with them and simultaneously not be a killer.
Even from a less emotional standpoint, the idea of matching someone's worth to theri "societal contribution" is dangerous. Does this mean i could go around and kill homeless people? They aren't contributing to society, so is that okay? It is obviously not.
Writing this has exposed myself to a strong view i didn't know i had, i generally value people's worth off of how kind they are, not what they can do for me.
@@notjohn2672 Also, love how my brain naturally assumed the killer was male. We love to see engrained biases.
I was just thinking, I know a fairly comparable real-world scenario. A whole LOT of rapists and sexual offenders get away with minimal consequences (not serving a lot of jail time, not losing their jobs) due to the argument that they "contribute" so much to their work/ profession/ society.
How about contributing in a more morally ethical way, such as not raping/ murdering/ sexually harassing, etc? The idea of "contributing to society" needs to include protecting lives, property, and well-being.
@@rachiekimberly6800 I love your comments, thank you for posting them! Also, I very much relate with being unsure about many things; also the statement: "I generally value people's worth off of how kind they are, not what they can do for me."
The way I first thought about that situation is that, basically, a life is a life. In most places in modern society if I'm not mistaken, life is a right you are born with, not one you have to earn, right? This victim in the scenario is a fellow person with thoughts, hopes, likes, fears, faith, dreams and so on. A soul. Maybe this person liked waking up and seeing clear skies, or walking around and feeling the breeze, or was doing a job, or just enjoyed whatever freedom he/she had in any way it existed for them. It is their right.
This person, as far as we know, has overall not done any harm to society, even if also not any good. In this case, this person was an innocent. If indeed this is true and this person was murdered without having attacked anyone or anything like that, this victim deserves justice. The criminal should be punished. If nothing else, I think the killer should at least be in house arrest, maybe continue to contribute to society from there.
Having a loved one die is an unfortunate and very sad event, but I don't think that's the reason murderers get punished by law. The reason I think is, you steal a fellow person's life and future, so you pay for your crime. The event of people mourning is a consequence of death, but the crime is the killing.
Even if the murdered person was of no use to the greater population doesn't mean they were insignificant to themselves. The murdered person had a universe within their own mind that was extinguished by another human, one who supposedly knows what it means to act in a way that effects the greater community in a positive manner. Thus, they are not above the rules of society even if they redeem themselves later on. Human society should protect even those who chose to avoid it, otherwise what's really happening at the foundation of having a society that doesn't value human life at the most basic level of existence. -INTJ
As for Fi itself, I think it has the potential to be one of the functions that develops the most in a person's lifetime and can drastically change how a person interacts and views the world. It can cause drastic imbalances in a person seemingly overnight if it's acting unchecked by the others in the function stack.
*"A person is a person, no matter how small" or ignored.*
Plus, the murderer can still do good things in jail. If he were destined to be good for society for the rest of his life, then he can still do so from behind bars.
-INFP
This has been very helpful. Ti and Fi were always problematic for me to explain or to tell them apart, but this video has made things much clearer and even for my own type I'm now pretty sure I don't have Fi.
Addressing Love Who’s Paradox
(5:05 - 5:55)
in response to lovewho’s point, a top commenter, an infp, stated: “I have always wondered if i was really an infp since i’ve always valued logic but that was more ti. i’ve finally realized that i have fi and just really value logic!”
another commenter responded with “that makes both of us, knowing that fi can value *anything* has…etc”
if it is indeed possible for an ixfp, specifically infp to *value* any trait, behaviour, or skill (ei logic), why aren’t infps, from what i’ve seen, versatile as hell? why are there some moral principles that almost all fi doms consistently share?
..sure, there are some morals that are universally agreed upon as “bad” (m•rder, r•pe, etc), with most kid stories and movies promoting messages that denounce these actions. the adults of our society view it as a priority to instil these moral convictions into children, since this formative period is when they're beginning to mould their personal views on the world. - as such, the “consistent morality” seen in infps can be attributed to each one having been raised, and injected with similar moral beliefs - and without some form of ti inclination towards critically assessing the validity of these ethical verdicts - they may accept these beliefs as face value right/wrongs.
so consistent morality makes sense, but, from what i’ve noticed, infp values aren’t always consistent between subjects. there is significant variation.
as such, what about an fi dom who *values* “logical understanding”?
technically speaking, it should be possible, for the following reasons. first off, a common characteristic among types that prioritize feeling (fi/fe) is “the desire to embody behaviours that appeal to *someone's* preferences” - for high fe types, their outwards behavior is influenced by the expectations, needs, and wants of those around them. in contrast, for fi types, their behaviour is typically based around on the personal feelings, sense of identity, and desires of the subject.
to provide a simpler definition:
fe - behaviour intends to appeal to group desire
fi- behaviour intends to appeal to personal desire
this principle helps discern why ixfp’s often have an inclination towards identifying as an “intj” or similar, and then proceed to embody the “edginess”, or other quirks that makes these types unique (often to compensate the bad rep their actual types get) - and embody because they find the type appealing.
now, to answer the initial question, one hypothetical reason why an infp might have an aspiration towards logical understanding could stem from an admiration for the intp stereotype (200 iq genius who disregards social conventions), which could be a behaviour that an infp might aspire to adopt/emulate.
so, its now settled that an infp could hypothetically value logic. then why tf dont they apply it?
(also, i’ve addressed their consistent morality, but what about they’re inconsistent, but not all-encompassing values?):
there is such a wide range of tangible, conceivable things in this world, from organisms to inanimate objects to concepts to textures, so what is keeping infps from having values ranging from all sorts of things, and instead seeming to be mostly restrained? i don’t think it’s true that they can value anything, but why?
well, the following question *should* answer the previous one: what imparts personal meaning to an infp?
- does it have to be a living/breathing thing? no, i’ve encountered infps who are drawn towards art and similar, non living things (even objects).
- is it that they need to relate to it? no, i’ve met multiple infps who believe in/support a “cause” that has no semblance to anything remotely human-esc.
so, there doesn’t seem to be a consistent way to define what infps designate as meaningful or not - what they value. which yet again reinstates my confusion over their lack of versatility in this area, and why they are never inherently logical due to it being a value of theirs (“maybe they don’t have the ti to properly apply it?” well, i’ve met many an infp who excels at logic puzzles and similar tasks).
even so, from a utility standpoint, it makes sense why an infp might be *less inclined* towards logic, and similar constructs - as they are more likely to designate personal value into a thing then perceive it as objectively “valuable”. to elaborate:
seeing as infps don’t innately prioritize logic, to have it they’d need to learn/recognize it as a useful skill - a mental process which requires designating something as “objectively valuable”.
that said, with enough at stake, or in the case that logic (or similar) was a byproduct of something more “meaningful”, some infps would be drawn towards using it.
so where does it happen? why don’t infps who value “logical debates” ever seem to exist???
I posed that exact same question (to myself and others) a year or so ago when I was questioning whether I might actually be an INFP who, through some paradox of Fi, valued Ti to the extent I seemed to mimick an INTP. However, upon further reflection, when you really examine a person's values, Fi valuing Ti implicitly would not present in the same way as Ti being implicitly valued as a dominant function. It would only be the Fi-user's conception of what Ti might be. Because inferior Te and dominant Fi are naturally going to conflict with Ti and Fe. What's "good for the goose" is not necessarily "good for the gander." Fi-users still stay true to their own values and morals, at the detriment of, and often against Fe, while being insecure about Te collective reasoning and consensus. Staying true to one's individual reasoning at the detriment of Te and being insecure about Fe harmony would conflict with those dynamics. Some types seem to be able to handle internal contradiction a bit better than others. But the thing about the introverted judging functions is they seem to have an extremely low tolerance for contradiction within their internal framework. So just how Ti can't withstand logical contradiction and inconsistencies in reasoning/principles, so too Fi, I think, would not be able to withstand moral contradiction and inconsistencies in morality/value judgements. So I think the contradiction posed by truly valuing Ti, as that inextricably implies valuing Fe, would present too much conflict against Fi for the Fi-dom to acquiesce. In this hypothetical, Fi "valuing" Ti might look more like admiration of Ti than truly emulating its use.
Also, you might say Fi is one of the most "versatile" in its capacity to value almost anything only when considered broadly on the spectrum of all Fi-users. But within any given individual, Fi values can be pretty rigid and must all align with each other, which is, in a way, the opposite of "versatile." It certainly does not afford the individual versatility. I'd be more amenable to saying Fi is one of the most _individualistic_ functions. But, in a way, aren't all introverted functions that way? Si users like what they like, in a sensory way, and have attachments to objects and memories in a very individual way that will vary from person to person too. Just as an example. That doesn't make Si doms versatile. It just means Si doms, as a group, might display a wide array of idiosyncrasies, rituals and routines, but no one Si dom will display all those or have much flexibility in their preferences. I'd maybe just say introverted functions result in patterns that can vary greatly from individual to individual.
this was an interesting read. ive definitely been struggling on figuring out on whether im an intp or infp despite the many things ive read about both functions.
@@morxsine That's a common dilemma. If you do have auxiliary Ne, I regret to inform you that you may never truly feel 100% certain. At best I reach tentative conclusions (albeit, I am usually perfectly fine sitting with the uncertainty, or lack of closure, in a way other types aren't). I tend to go through cycles where I do my due diligence in exploring alternative hypotheses and question myself, only to eventually re-settle on the same tentative conclusion... tentatively lol. Do you happen to know your enneagram type?
I think this is a great point.
I do feel though that there are a lot of people that believe they are hyper-rational and identify with beign INTPs, or perhaps INTJs, when they're actually INFPs who are extremly good at rationalising their beliefs, but these beliefs are formed based on their feelings/values, not via critical reasoning, even if they're clever. These people would also find it difficult to ever be wrong, as their ideas are based on values connected to their identity, rather than ideas based on reason.
The thumbnail tho
Nathan you looked like a ✨model✨
@HABIT's RABIT like this one in particular:
ruclips.net/video/WHrn_pHW2so/видео.html
@@blackoceancreativeuniverse lol true for a second thought I got rickrolled
@@thatonekaeyamain6725 i would never rickroll you- insert a seemingly irrelevant reference that has eventual, hilarious relevance, always. but never rickroll. i enjoy this channel's discussions too much!
@@blackoceancreativeuniverse omg same i luv the channel too and just enjoy reading people share their opinions and knowledge it gives me a sense of satisfaction that I cannot explain and even I give out unrelated or irrelevant references and example
We are not so different it’s good to know 🙃
@@thatonekaeyamain6725 I was worried about HABIT, but I'm glad he has a RABIT now.
Also answering your question 1:13 from a personal SUBJECTIVE OPINION 😂 (I'm sorry i have to say this because me and my mom love each other so much but i end up debating with and so she starts getting annoyed because of that XD). Okay answering your question now. We need to understand the person who murdered is a complete hypocrite. He has committed a disgusting crime and must be put to jail. It doesn't matter if the person is popular or barely known by the society, justice is for everyone, it also depends why he killed him although killing is way too extreme so he would need to have an extremely convincing reason. The word justice exists for a reason. If there were to be no justice for the person who was murdered then that self contradicts the concept of justice. The murderer who is now a "Nice" person "Helping" the society out, people would view him in that way because they see him behave that way, but what most people wouldn't do is question is past. So to summarise my response, Yes. I would have that person in jail even though he killed someone not known by the society at all. A crime is a crime.
ENTP here - I do not value justice or punishment for its own sake. It makes no sense. As a parent, I don't use punishment, because learning a concept happens best when the concept is understood rather than tied to arbitrary punishment. I understand equitability and egalitarianism, but justice is often a weapon, and punishment is a placebo for the masses as opposed to an effective process for improvement.
This makes a lot of sense from an ENTP to be honest! ~ Nathan
since the incident isn’t known and no on would be like “oh murder for free” punishing the murderer is pointless cause the now-good murderer could offer good things to society and punishing the murderer doesn’t do any good to anyone. but if this would make other people go on a killing spree, the murderer should be punished to make an example.
-intp
For the murder moral dilemma I think it comes down to the motivation of murder.
If you wanted to accurately evaluate the impact of the murderer on the society you have to acknowledge that the real value of an individual to society is not only his productivity, but also his morals.
This individual will go on to spread his values and might even start a family and have kids who might get influenced with his values...
First question actually reminding me of death note. Light Yagami was killing criminals for making the world a better place , but at the end when Near tells him "you are just a mass criminal" it cleared the whole thing. Crime is crime no matter how good intentions you had while committing it. And in this question that dude murdered a random reclusive person which definitely makes him a criminal not matter how amazing he is. You can not defend a crime just because the victim had no family or nobody will know about it.
This hyopthetical is ripped straight from Dostovesky's 'Crime and punishment'. Both these two works of fiction are sitting in my bookshelf as I type.
These takes give no actual answers beyond how you _feel_. I'm more interested in reasons
INFP here.
100% agree. Fi can be anything.
Fi vs Ti: As an INFP, I make every decision, especially big ones, based in a highly complex framework of constructed values, often ethical, often what I like (which is based in motivation), often what helps preserve a sense of peace (Si) and increasingly in later years in life with a logic to it (derived from Te, for instance what works, and what works not, or what science says). The data is obtained always from Ne (neverending exploration of information). Earlier in life I was very scientific (Ne is very curious, so science fullfilled the Fi interest). Later music got an interest in me in my twenties. Then social systems. Then science again. Others do see me as a complicated being, the Fi problem.
I think the Ti framework is easier. Its pure logic, its more scientific. Its easier to predict, perhaps. And it makes decisions more easily. Fi can get very stuck with decision making, and low Te points to low efficiency or efficiency that comes in bursts, punctuating a generally drifting life).
Fi vs Fe: A part of me, Fi dominant, is actually jealous of Fe types. Fe is all too simple, all feel good group-wise. I kind of like that. I wish I could have that. The good thing about strong Fi is that all is dependant on me, such as sense of self-worth and caring for my needs. I am acutely aware of that. But it can be rather selfish/self-focused.
Fi vs Fi: And interestingly enough, despite the fact that I have strong values in life (and I am very individualist and idiosyncratic in values), it's often INFP that trigger me, because their value preferences go against mines!
Finally, a note about Fi/Te combo: I went completely the ethical way in your hypothetical scenario (a crime is an ethical crime so it needs to face a consequence). However i do use Te too. If society data shows than forced long-term volunteer labour is better than prison, then I would support volunteer labour as an sentence.
To answer the question. I would put the person in jail for their crime because otherwise we have a precedent in where someone who commits a crime is completely forgiven and creates the opportunity for behaviours such as "I will rid the world of a particular person, my motives and reasons are not important, they could be completely out of envy for that person, and then I would become a good citizen. Since we have the precedent that someone who did the same was forgiven, I expect to be forgiven as well." and by that we allow crimes to be committed because the person who has committed them becomes and angel without taking into consideration what the isolated person could bring to society.
If the person who committed the crime can change, so can the isolated person and who's to say that at some point in their life they would join the society and bring insights and help progress it? If the person who committed the crime cannot change, then the same applies to the isolated person, but in that case you have to ask yourself what kind of society it is where a criminal is not only forgiven but becomes a valuable member that society really is. Basically it would be saying "it is ok to remove isolated people because we deem them unworthy of their lives, just because they are not part of OUR society. And because you have done so, you have become more valuable.". It even encourages the act which degenerates in general allowance of crime as long as it is committed against certain groups of people. We already had that in our human history, we know how that turns out.
On the other hand, you can ask why stop at one crime? Why not 2? What if someone goes on a savage cleansing operation to remove all isolated people on the planet and then become model citizens, would they be forgiven then? If not, why only an arbitrary number of crimes should be forgiven? If it is generally accepted then said society deems isolated people unworthy of their own lives although they have no impact on the society itself as they have isolated themselves from it. It doesn't see isolated people as humans anymore, they see them as something less and therefore are expendable.
In short, the deed must be punished to not encourage it or at the very least, to not turn a blind eye to it and thus still marking it as unacceptable.
FiTe thing...I value on my work, what I put on, that I made something fully alive.
The whole point of jail is to force you to think about what you've done and forcefully 'make you a better person'.
If the universe guarantees that the murderer will immediately start being a productive member of society, then the murderer has essentially already served his sentence and I absolutely agree with your fellow ENTP friend.
-ENTP, lol
That literally doesn’t take away from the fact that they’ve taken a life. You don’t just get to take a free life away
INFP here. In regards to your initial hypothetical question, for such an act I would keep tabs on that persons life, not saying anything while they went through their bettering humanity stage, however I would either personally or have it set up in my will in some sort of format, that as they were reaching the end of their life these revelations came to light. That way society still benefited from their input, but their dying days would not go without having the repercussions of their actions affect how they see and how they are seen by the world. Let each individual in the world impose their own individual fi on this perpetrator in the individuals last days.
INFP here. I actually think that the murderer shouldn't go to jail. I believe that justice for it's own sake is overrated and that prisons should act as correctional facilities instead of tools for people who had nothing to do with the case to have a justice wank.
If we know that the murderer will end up being a good person, there's no real need to correct him, as he's clearly not evil, in fact et the resulting good may be a result of the murder he commited, the guilt he may have felt, and his own self reflection.
I also don't trust the prison-industrial complex where I live, as it's set up to keep criminals incapable of living in a society, which leads to them commiting more crimes after they come out, which puts them in prison again to keep the tax money flowing. If our murderer ends up in one of those prisons, it's likely he'll end up being a worse person and, if he ever comes out, end up murdering someone again.
ENFP here. To the first question:
Everyone has somebody who cares about them, and if they don’t then the person in question probably didn’t want to be alive in the first place. In my experience even the most introverted people still want somebody there
I feel like Fi forces me to form a opinion on everything. When I read a book, i always ask myself: is he good or bad? (meant in a very subjective way, not in the justice kind of way).
For me, i like to know how i stand to things.
The friend of my older infp sis told her, that she (infp sis) likes to have an opinion on everything, whereas the friend (entp) is just going through world, without feeling something abt everything.
Oh yea, and i am enfp
Sometimes, a punishment is an act of justice towards the criminal, sometimes towards the victim, sometimes both. It depends on multiple factors whether a punishment is deserved, and what punishment is deserved.
In this case, I think, the murderer deserves a punishment that would serve as a reminder of his crime for him throughout his life, but would not directly affect any other aspect of his free life
I definitely agree that Fi has the potential to be one of the most versatile functions. For example, I am an INFP that has a strong value for logic and results rather than a concept such as justice. I used to value the concept more than the results and used to make decisions based on what felt right, but my brother (200% ISTP😂) has had a strong impact on my values and has proven me wrong so many times I had a change of values.
even though i've already figured out my opinion on the murder hypothetical, i still think it's a great concept. anyway, i'd let the person go free. if i can get more details, my opinion might change. the phrasing implies that the murderer committed the crime out of their own will and not for any good reason. the actual amount of good is also unspecified. it doesn't say if this person just helps out a few people each week or if they're finding the cure for cancer. 'immense good' implies something closer to the latter. as much as i'd want them to go to jail, if they're saving a lot of lives, i'd be the one preventing those people from fully living their lives if i throw the murderer in jail. also, if the murder was committed so they could cause all that good, then i'd let them go free, but if it was out of hatred or jealousy, i'd be a lot less willing to let them free (unless, like i said above, they'll save a lot of lives).
overall:
murder committed out of hatred/jealousy/etc. = jail
murder committed out of hatred/jealousy/etc. BUT they save a bunch of lives = no jail
murder committed out of hatred/jealousy/etc. and their 'immense good' doesn't outweigh their malicious murder = jail
murder committed so they could do good, save lives and whatnot (don't ask how they'd need to murder someone to do good, this is a hypothetical) = no jail
If they didn't offer anything objectively good, then society shouldn't punish the murderer. They simply take up useless space and I never understood why people would prioritise justice like this
-isfp
I am an ENFP (Fi in 2nd function): I think the fact that the person going to be a proactive society member CANNOT cross out his action (these 2 events are unrelated). And the fact that the victim lost could be unnoticeable does not make him any less of a human. So YES he needs to take responsibility for the crime.
I was looking for a comment like this (fellow ENFP). In the scenario it's implying that because the person was a recluse and nobody close that they had no value and weren't entitled to live their life. I would argue they created a negative by removing someone from existence. It doesn't matter what the murderer did in the future, they have taken a life and must face justice.
The thing I'm hung up on is why people assume they can discern the direction where this crimimal's will go. He deserves jail because he chose to kill another person, and the law hands out punishments to set an example for others who might follow that man's path. The person who was killed does matter, whether their lives would've touched others or not.
So I agree, the man is guilty and should recieve punishment. I don't know if the man who was killed could've done wonders to society had he lived but I don't feel that's what's important here, the crime that took place is what matters.
@@fattysl26 completely agree 👍
I have two close friends who are INFPs. They have very differing values. One values tradition a lot and one values logic a lot
Yeah it depends on their past experiences (Si)
Fi also has to do with one's immediate impression of life. It need not be about grand ideas about justice or authenticity. When high Fi users are healthy, they are deeply impressed by life without actually going out and accomplishing feats. Whatever they do from that point on is primarily for their own leisure. Their accomplishments become a secondary matter.
Also, values of justice and authenticity can come from Ti and Fe too, no? This made me question my type AGAIN.
@@LentilSoupGirl authenticity is not a value. It's a way of experiencing the world.
As an INFP, the best way I can describe my experience of Fi is: It's kind of like those childhood games where someone hides a prize and tells you "You're getting warmer, you're getting cooler," as you approach and retreat from the thing. Only, you're saying that to yourself, 24/7, and during the times when you're "getting warmer," all roads seem to open to you, and when you're "getting colder," it hurts, and there's an urgent sense that you need to self-correct as soon as possible. What is the hidden object? I guess it's a sense of wholeness that also incorporates beauty, integrity, love, fairness, and just a sense that you're going in the right direction. But it isn't only based on self. I definitely have the feeling when interacting with people that I have to carefully maintain balance or else I'm going to hurt them, like I'm intuiting the "warmer/colder" thing for them based on what I assume they would feel. Would be interested if any other Fi users can relate to this description.
Beautiful!! And insightful for an Fe user such as me. I love the analogy so much!! Please share more!!
@@timefortee Oh, thank you! I'm glad it kind of made sense. 😊
Nathan really loved giving the INFPs some content.
Im an ENFP and I believe that Fi can really value everyhting, I recently started valuing experiencing things in life, going out and doing stuff rather than just thinking about them which is a lot like Se. The reason I value this now is actually because of my Ne, I realized that the experiences you go through are often different than the visions you have in your mind and it's so interesting to see what those differences are and how that can open up to new possibilities
You as an enfp, I have been wondering how do you decide on morals , you just merely feel it ? Ok , as a ti user I sometimes would feel the mistakes in an idea but still need more time and input to define those mistakes or realise that i was wrong , so if your fi feels something how do you justify it in the beginning, is it always very clear to you why you feel this way and if not then how do you interpret your feelings or morals , is it te then? Because I have been thinking that fi is logical too and works in the same way as ti but with different inputs and thus outputs , based on my definition of logic as just comparisons using any criteria you want , so how do you compare ?
@@malakashraf2801 Hi Ti user :)))
So as an ENFP I have Ne dom and Fi aux. This often results in me exploring different ideas and then asking myself, "How does this make me feel?". In a sense it is logical but it works on the basis of how good or satisfactory an action, idea or principle feels. I hope you can see how that is different from Ti because it does feel different intuitively but I can't put it in words.
Fi justifies the value solely on how satisfactory it is in terms of feeling, what makes you feel good is dependant on your other functions and experiences in general tho. For example as ENFP, being open to as many possibilities is really valuable for me because using my Ne feels good. Its not only limited to this, like I said the ideas I explored also make me feel a certain way and those also result in values through Fi. These values go through Te to see which ones are the most efficient in terms of usage in the tangible world and personal satisfaction. This might be where the similarity to Ti comes from, it's not necessarily that Fi in itself is logical but combined with Te it becomes logical to an extent. This later goes through Si which makes me stick to those values even if they don't necessarily "make sense". This however is more a cause of conflict than anything for us ENFPs because Si is inferior and it causes conflict when unmonitored. Not sticking to values may make us feel insincere and inauthentic.
I've rambled too much sry lmao (typical ENFP) but yeah this is how I experience Fi. Fi here only creates values based on feeling, if its going through a logical framework it might be more because of Te. You might see more conflict with logical filtration of the values with INFPs as they have Te inf
@@-emir5484 I see , thank you so much fi user
As INFP I value justice, truth, logic and beauty and strive to collect as many patterns of these in the world as I can, seeking ever more understanding.
Me too!!! - an ISFP
can you please answer my question? it can be short. i am curious - what is beauty? i am an infj
One thing that I wonder: How would you comment on the potential Conflicts between Fi and Fe users vs the one between Ti and Te users? Is it quite simular or do you see larger differences?
@Kim Fabaceae you're missing what I'm asking. I'm not asking about the conflict between Te and Ti but about how that one differs from the conflict between Fi and Fe.
Also, as a Ti user, your explanations have Te oversimplifications. Te isn't more efficient than Ti per se (and btw efficient=/=effective).
It always depends on the context. I. E. When I learn a new topic and can draw parallels to other things I learned (which is quite often these days) I'm MUCH more efficient at learning it than your normal Te user would be. And faster at incorporating the information, because I reduce it to very little actually new information. And when bringing humanity forward. I'd argue that more of the ideas etc that have stuck with us were made by Ti users than Te users. They're not "for the individual", arguably while Te decisions tend to be more about and influence the immediate surrounding, the ones that are significant to the whole society are more likely Ti focused. It's just that such ideas are not very common, so most of the time yeah Te users are likely more productive.
Also I'd argue against your claim that these functions are designed to emphasise a need to cooperate. There's far more effective ways of doing that, actually these differences work against cooperation. But when we do cooperate we get better results than if we were the same. We're looking at natural fluctuations in interests that evolution keeps at levels where they're the most beneficial to society. Meaning that people both have specific interests (be it because of Ti, Te or any other function) that drive society forward, but at the same time the fluctuations are kept at a level where, for the most part, people still are able to cooperate with each other good enough. And yeah, in the end it means the same. We should cooperate and learn from each other and ultimately a balanced approach is best.
Very informative. I can now confirm i am an Fe- Ti user. Thank you!
I think Ti is also versitile, because it may come to a logical conclusion, that efficency, empathy or uniqueness.
...’ the person killed by this individual was *you* and in this scenario you had no family left’ ...I would add this as a follow up to the first question to see if anyone would change their answer.
I would not want them to be punished. I would still be dead either way, and I would rather have the murderer help a huge amount of people instead of having the murderer rot in jail and not do anything productive. -INTJ
@@mei-jw4hy I can't agree more . -INTP
Well I can’t think so...
didn't think this was unpopular but i agree with the ENTP friend, as an ESTP. the scenario is unrealistic obviously, bc it is hypothetical. but if ALL the conditions apply, i don't think the person should go to jail. that doesn't mean i don't value human life or approve of murder. but that person is dead. they're not here to be sad about their lack of recognition. nobody will miss them and hopefully the murderer will feel guilty 24/7 (since they never commit a crime again). objectively more good consequences to let the guy go free since he will do good stuff. you have to adapt your value system to specific cases!! also the point that the killed person could alsp have gone on to do good stuff is true but irrelevant since they are already dead in the scenario presented. thanks for reading :)
I agree! Though the scenario is pretty unrealistic, but if really everything applied, then yes - let this person do good for society.
Suffering losses because of irrational decisions is, in my opinion, amoral, dangerous and destructive in and of itself. (As well as just being useless; needless and a hindrance to a well functioning society)
(Intj)
I am an INTJ-T and I have seen that INTJ-As are much different than INTJ-Ts. I would like to see your videos on the differences between assertive and turbulent within each type.
I love my Fi demon. - INTP
(I meant I love it to stay at the bottom.)
Since i have inferior Fe, i do like to do what benefits groups (in certain cases) but at the same time prefer to stay alone and work alone and work on my own interests. Isnt that the opposite?
also i think Ti and Fi are related, like really. Personally if someone comes to attack my values (i mean, everyone has values), i would use my Ti to explain why my values are logical and true and for the benefit of everyone. If they succeed in convincing me that their value is more beneficial and useful and true, i would start valuing it
I'm also an INTP and I don't live off of values. I sort of just use logic to determine what's right and what's not, not a specific set of values that I find really important
@@Master-dy7sh Yeah thats what i meant, i dont rely on values that i was raised on or that my friends believe and rely on, i determine my values based on logic, if i found a more logical one i would start relying on it. I dont know if you got me. Because afterall, the example he mentioned in the video (the murder) shows that (for me) certain situations need certain elaborating, u cant just rely on one value in all situations because it really may depend greatly. I think its injustice (if u want to consider values here as well) to rely on one value or set of values for all different situations
@@nova-a7404 ah ok that makes sense
Don’t waste your energy on someone who attacks your values.
@@ProJanitor I prefer explaining why i believe this is right and this is wrong than ignoring. If they are ignoring then im fine with ignoring too
@2:15 it is like picking between two values i don't really have. Im sure we regulate ''free speech''
I paused the vid after you gave the scenario. Funnily enough, I went down the logical route of your ENTP friend, I understood that side, but at the end of the day, the person did commit the crime, and so should be punished accordingly. That's what I came to. As an INFP
Also, I don't think I see Fe as disingenuous. I see it more as cute in a sense, because they put themselves over others and care about the harmony of the room a lot. I also care about the harmony of the room, but I feel uncomfortable if my Fi values are under threat basically
I sometimes see high Fe as a bit much to handle but I ADORE lower Fe (especially in INTPs for some reason.)
@@Kiseochan haha. To be completely honest, I find those with Fe polar like INTJs and with inferior Fe like INTPs a bit too annoying. To me they can sometimes come off as robotic. But when I find mature ones I love them lol. They're kinda cute when they try I guess
As long as no one knows, I agree with your ENTP friend for the same reason.
ISFP here. My answer to your first question, yes, even though it's a net good to society, a single person's life is still precious, what if that person was you, of course, it's hypothetical ;)
My opinion to the last question, I agree. Like you've said, a high Fi user can value logic or emotion, joy or sadness, avoiding seeking power or seek it, being artistically skilled or not, but still enjoys it. I agree that it manifests in the greatest variety. ISFPs in particular have the greatest variety. One can be a potter, a sculptor, a writer, singer, painter, a soap spler, or anything, as long as the ISFP enjoys it
I don't think the dead guy would care because he's dead
Thank you, I agree with your comment 👍
infp here, thanks for videos m8, FI can be a real bitch sometimes, especially when dealing with high TE users, cause even though i've learned to debate saying " it's my opinion" it doesnt change some objective facts. In general i struggle to debate with NT's exept for intp's maybe, they seem more prone to understading a certain point of view without making a huge debate over everything and are way more chill. I'm not remotely intersted in obectivity if its not part of a plan or a project when some others may seem to only think about whats the more logic side of things. Btw, love ye m8
I disagree with the ENTP for the first scenario, and I think people should always have free speech.
I love what you said about Fi/Fe. I actually care about everyone as individuals even though I have Fe. As a collective we are made of individuals.
The grand existence is conscious and alive. There are infinite channels flowing forth in every direction from the core of that grand consciousness. And a speck of that grand consciousness exists in each channel that flows forth from the core, and so each speck experiences "individuality" while still being part of the One whole grand consciousness.
The notion of "death" is a metaphor that explains the process of leaving one range (pattern) of frequencies to enter another--the individual remains as he or she was, they just now are in a different range of frequencies (pattern) than before.
Fi is versatile because if you value logic, it can kind of seem like Ti. If you value other people, the Fi can look like Fe.
To answer you last question: definitely yeah. Even when typing people, Fi dominants always mess with my head. They always look like different types
Thanks Nathan! it is always an insightful pleasure to keep track on your videos!
Personally, I'd want that one Person, even if he contributes really good to society, to go to jail. Its just not fair for the other person. Also this scenario reminded me a whole lot of the song "Disappear" from the Musical Dear Evan Hansen. Maybe thats why this is my answere.
RIP connor
That last question was truly something 😮.
Intj here! I very much have a set of morals and values that drive me. I have been told I’m very opinionated to those few who I get into deeper convos with 😂😂
Same here. Its for this reason that my family do not like to have certain conversations with me and I've been told to just stay 'surface level' with them. Its frustrating, but its one of the things I love most about myself.
@@AlienBunnyRabbit That's sad (said my Fi). About those relationships, not about loving yourself.
@@blackoceancreativeuniverse eh its gotten better, at least for myself over the years. I just don't take it too personally. And plus I have a couple of friends that will engage in meaningful conversation.
@@AlienBunnyRabbit Those kind of friends are a major lifeline for me- all 3 of them.
Same.
3 free men came to visit my class one day... they talked about their childhood experiences growing up, committing crimes, and their experiences serving time. Then they went on to say that after they were released they turned to volunteering their time to keep young kids from going down the same path. They also talked about how difficult it was to re-enter into society in the technological age and date/work again. Guess who didn’t get to share experiences? Be commended by a class for doing good? And be asked follow up questions about what their future looks like? You guessed it... the people that died.
I’m an INTJ and the way I use Fi is that as I’m watching them laugh about what it’s like to enjoy life I begin to have the above questions float around... as I witness my classmates curiously ask them questions about who they are and what influenced them to change for the better I wonder if there is something deeply morally amiss here. Then I postulate a philosophy about how society sometimes overlooks valuing the wrong things...
But then I experience another scenario where I encounter one woman who was capable of having a child and taking care of it... wanting to abort... meanwhile encountering another mother who was hooked on meth wanting to keep her child. Society will support the mothers right in either situation. Who will support the child’s right to a good life provided they are given the chance after conception? Again, what does society value here and what is society overlooking? How do I feel about this? I ask myself this.
And then finally I land in a group of men with criminal backgrounds and I listen to them gloat and brag about how they got away with stuff... they laugh, reminisce, maybe reflect deeply enough to find a nugget of a lesson... I sit there and wonder... where are their children at and the single moms who are caring for their children because they all have children and yet they choose to talk about the glory days... again, Fi will ask... what am I doing here? I should be talking to and supporting the single moms who are raising these guys kids alone... they are struggling, they are likely tired and overworked, and are having to fight rearing their kids alone hopefully in the opposite direction of which they spawned from.
Fi will tune itself to the answers of these questions then behavior aligns or re-aligns to create harmony in the self. Human life is valuable but society will pick and choose when to value it and what to value overall.
Justice must be served, the murderer has to pay. The concept of justice doesn't mean anything if it isn't applied always. - ESTJ
Ye, so? The murderer is paying by helping a huge number of people and not committing another crime. If you decide that he should be in jail, you don't value repentance. I am an ESTJ too
@@acheekyyaqub What about the man who was murdered, do we as a society not value life? He must answer for his crimes.
As an INTJ I was definitely split on that. The logic in the ENTPs answer was clear, but I think my Fi is decently developed (or at least regularly exercised and I respect/value it), and having those things clash leaves me confused
My first reaction would probably actually be "How do you know these things?" Like how do you know they won't commit another crime. Bc unless you have some way of manipulating the fourth dimension I don't see how you can know lol
In response to the second question: As an INTJ with tertiary Fi I see it as a very versatile function. Fi is a way of being able to deeply reflect on yourself and know your core values, that being said those values could be anything so the first question is going to get a lot of varying answers.
If you can help, I have been wondering how do you decide on morals and values , you just merely feel it ? Ok , as a ti user I sometimes would feel the mistakes in an idea but still need more time and input to define those mistakes or realise that i was wrong , so if your fi feels something how do you justify it in the beginning, is it always very clear to you why you feel this way and if not then how do you interpret your feelings or morals , is it te then? Because I have been thinking that fi is logical too and works in the same way as ti but with different inputs and thus outputs , based on my definition of logic as just comparisons using any criteria you want , so how do compare ?
I'm an ENFP and every time I come across a question like the ones about the murder or free speech I can almost hear my Fi and Te fighting each other as I try to answer it, which can be very frustrating at times, since I often don't get to a final answer. What led me to conclude that the Fi is the more dominant one is that it's the one who wins more often, even though most of the times there is a tie, and Te also wins a considerable amount, but not the majority.
(Btw I didn't come to an answer to either of the questions)
Every ISFP: That person's life mattered. Throw that murderer in jail.
Hmm wonder if I’m an outlier? I see why he should be thrown in jail but I also see why he shouldn’t. I answered (with hesitation) that he shouldn’t be sent to jail 🤔
@@krispycorazon707 well, then where do you get off this slippery slope? By this reasoning, if you are enough of a 'net positive' in your life, any and all atrocities you commit are excusable, as long as they remain secret. Do you not find that appalling? I do.
I agree. Every life has value. A murder victim is still a victim
@@Siansonea Remember we are not debating whether the murder was okay. We are debating whether the punishment makes sense or not.
@@JackyVSO so, sometimes we shouldn't punish people for murder?
As an INFP, I have been thinking that Fi was morally oriented, equating values with morals. I screwed that one up! Overuse of your first function can really blind you to the realities of the world. Studying cognitive functions reminds me of studying philosophy. I do love the clarity of your explanations!
As an infj.. I'd say yes to jail because put an end to a life can't stay unpunished, regardless whose life was...BUT...i first would like to know how the murder happened...does the murderer feel regret for his action...this could bring to let him free (with reserve)
I don't nessecearily think it's a weird question to ask yourself what feels right when making a decision in the sense of being fulfilled in what you're doing but it in the moral sense, I make more of those kinds of decisions based on what I think that actual impact of my actions will be on myself and others rather than having some sort of gut compass.
I would look at the motive of the murderer before deciding their fate. -INFP
@April W ....Said the Lego pirate?
@@blackoceancreativeuniverse An INFP pirate, especially one made of lego pieces, can't be entirely ruthless.
@@aprilw2287 An INFPirate can be very ruthless if you hide her snacks and pirate hat.
@@blackoceancreativeuniverse Especially her snacks.
@@aprilw2287 You say that now, but what if I hid your chocolate and starches so well that you had to commandeer a passing whaling trawler to keelhaul their snacks? You'd look pretty silly trying to pull the "Dread Pirate Roberts" routine without your tricorner hat!
ENFP here. Even though I can say I align with my Fi a lot and work strongly with my moral values, I also know that it cannot be applied to every situation (maybe). So then that's when my Ti comes in and tell me what action will benefit the situation the most, most of the time it fits within my values created by my Fi, other times it doesn't. In these scenarios, I would ditch my Fi to make the action that would benefit the most people and have the most pros.
I understand the sentiment behind the 2 questions you posed at the end, but to me, they make Fi seem more like a “wannabe” function.
Let’s take the example of you saying a high Fi user highly values logic, which implies they value using Ti. Unless the person has Ti high in their stack, they probably struggle in some way to use it. So Fi might value Ti and try to use it on a daily basis, but that doesn’t mean they’re using it well, or even correctly.
I see Fi in the same manner as Ti, as in the way the person builds it internally (just like your example of a web they build throughout their life). Both functions go through True/False conclusions rapidly, but one uses thoughts and the other uses feelings/morals/values; one asks “what do I THINK,” and one asks “how do I FEEL.”
I think that high Fi users who value and use “logic” are not really using their thoughts to come to a conclusion; since they so easily wield Fi, they convince themselves that their feelings are the same as rational, unbiased thought, and they call it logic.
In conclusion, Ti is unbiased thought (logic), and Fi is biased thought (feelings).
So... the answer to both questions I guess are no. I think the same analysis above can be applied to any other function, too.
Feeling is a highly evolved programmable decision engine, too. When feelers feel like it, they can be just as rational as thinkers are. Some feelers even feel like being rational most of the time.
Let us consider the classic case of the high Fi user who meticulously calibrates his Fi to decide when he feels like the theory of gravity ought to apply, which is all the time, except in the presence of a girl he's deliriously attracted to, where he feels like he can defy physics and fly. Who does the thinker think she is to distress his mind with thoughts of injury and death? Let the versatile boy make his own decisions! It's part of his charm.
I've heard this type of theoretical murder question labelled as "a moral conundrum". What right does any random person have to decide that they'll murder someone because they want to? That's crazy talk. As the question is asked/worded: From a moral standpoint, no it's not OK. From a legal standpoint, it's not OK. From a medical standpoint, it's not OK. From a military standpoint, as the question is asked, it's not OK.
Straying from the murder question a little, there are some very specific exceptions where death might be considered OK.
I can separate theoretical morals from theoretical logic, but we live in reality. Peace. (Edit: I didn't really answer the question but it is an answer)
Lol he wasn't asking if you thought murder was ok. In fact, saying the murderer should go free doesn't even mean you're condoning murder. Someone could say, this murderer absolutely deserves to go to prison, but that one person getting what they deserve isn't as important as a larger net benefit to society. Questions like this are designed to figure out how you make decisions.
Here's a REAL life example of a similar ethical conundrum. There was a Nazi doctor who did experiments on prisoners, and there was a question whether this research should ethically be used, because the knowledge he learned could actually help people. Logically, using his research after the fact is not the same as giving someone the green light to go ahead and do such things, but it might feel like you're condoning it. But you might put aside those feelings if you could measurably help people, reasoning that there's nothing you can do to help the ones he killed, and you might as well make lemonade out of lemons. This same line of reasoning could be used in the hypothetical murder question, it's just not the greatest hypothetical.
yes definitely. funny how I was just thinking about your question! 😆. it's how we're all still different despite having same functions. one could value a less moral and another could value something more human, and they'd both still be fi. so it's interesting
The question "does this feel right to me?" actually helps me cement the fact that I am an INTJ and not INFJ. This very question made me quit a university program not once but twice, and now I'm on a lifepath that fits me so much better.
Once I've read that INTJs are like humans disguised like robots, and INFJs robots disguised like humans. For me, it's the best analogy I could think of to explain the difference between both. As an INFJ, I've never questioned myself about what feels right, but what will work the best for my purposes, but since my projects are oriented to people I guess there's where all the stereotypes come from.
Good luck in your path! University it's only worth if you love academia, and even then is not the only way. I wish you're always where your heart feels right.
@@Lu-li1ei "what works for my purposes" sounds like high Te.
@@Hari-kx2er an infj would ask "what is the meaning behind this or that path?" and "is there any meaning to me in this?"(combo NI+TI) more than "what will work for my purposes"
@Francis Ngo "What works for my purposes" to put it more precisely is both Te and Fi. "What works" section is the Te and "my purpose" is the Fi. It requires a high Te combined with at least non inferior Fi. Hence why it precisely is an INTJ statement as INTJ has a non inferior Fi with high secondary Te. The dominant Ni further shows the path for the Tertiary Fi.
@Francis Ngo Ya, what you wrote is more fitting with regard to an ESTJ/ENTJ
I feel like Fi and Ni are those very vague functions that are super hard to understand and explain unless in conjunction with other functions manifested in a particular type... Fi particularly, I haven't looked as much into Ni but it's often described as deep, profound and "mystical", where to my understanding it's just a more focused, specific and deliberate inward-facing Ne
My Fi is anti-prison, but pro-capital punishment.
Yeppers re high Fe use being problematic for me (ENFP), a big Fi person. It's consistently the only source of conflict between my otherwise very close ENFJ and INFJ pals and I. Luckily our shared love of harmony and mutual respect get us over those humps, but they're never going to understand my adoration of INTJs and their beautifully blunt Fi. Same pals constantly also want me to date Fe types, and it just isn't going to happen. You can't ask me who you are and expect me to fall for you. For me, Fi is simply "To thine own self be true." That IS my highest value.
I feel the same I think. People like to match Fe and Fi users but Fe often feels too much for my Fi that likes to be introverted.