That's what I love most about INTJs. I love you guys to bits, I always find you and make friends out of you. But I think it's absolutely endearing how you guys spend so much time trying to make sense out of things as if that's possible, something I gave up myself long ago. I'm not trying to be patronizing I legitimately find it adorable.
I'm sure you guys think the same about the INFPs apparent total lack of logic and reasoning skills, and our lack of desire to make sense of anything.
Fe is bravery when you set your own principles aside and are willing to take the risk of disarming yourself for the sake of maintaining social harmony.
Fi is courageous if you dare to stand up for your own principles, disregarding from the stance of the general populace. I'm taking @Deleted member 16771 experience here from when he stood up against the faculty as one of the few defenders on what is right versus maintaining the facade that is the maintenance of the faculty itself. That to me is courageous (one upping you here bud, but it's well deserved).
Fe is cowardice when it is used as a group principle over someone's well being. I've seen and experience enough examples of people holding themselves in for the sake of some stupid group-setting and withstanding conflict while someone is suffering in silence. It's fucking cowardice when you do not act upon it.
Fi is egotistical when one's own values are pushed over a group, disregarding the commonality of everyone's principles. It strives for conflict through challenge rather than the necessity to resolve.
The most courageous on either is when you dare to take up Fi or Fe as an experience in which you are not comfortable with. These functions are the weakest for either INxJ's. And when I see an INFJ take their best effort to take steps based on inner (Fi) feelings, I have nothing but respect for that.
How do you know it wasn't legitimate? That sounds like some core INFP beliefs ..
Interesting that you view having ethics as cowardice. If everyone refused to fight in wars there wouldn't be wars; including world war 2 which relied upon average people who became Nazis for patriotism.
I know because that person very clearly didn’t have such an ethical system. I knew him well enough to know he couldn’t give two shits about those ideals you’re talking about.
This may be difficult to hear, but he did what he did out of cowardice, not principles. I don’t want to go into further details because this is part of my family history, but there is a lot of evidence for it.
The point of my post wasn’t to say it’s always illegitimate to be a pacifist. It would be ridiculous to hold such a view. It was to say outward pacifism can be a cover for inward cowardice.
I know because that person very clearly didn’t have such an ethical system. I knew him well enough to know he couldn’t give two shits about those ideals you’re talking about.
This may be difficult to hear, but he did what he did out of cowardice, not principles. I don’t want to go into further details because this is part of my family history, but there is a lot of evidence for it.
The point of my post wasn’t to say it’s always illegitimate to be a pacifist. It would be ridiculous to hold such a view. It was to say outward pacifism can be a cover for inward cowardice.
I know because that person very clearly didn’t have such an ethical system. I knew him well enough to know he couldn’t give two shits about those ideals you’re talking about.
This may be difficult to hear, but he did what he did out of cowardice, not principles. I don’t want to go into further details because this is part of my family history, but there is a lot of evidence for it.
The point of my post wasn’t to say it’s always illegitimate to be a pacifist. It would be ridiculous to hold such a view. It was to say outward pacifism can be a cover for inward cowardice.
There's also the small matter of his using a fake doctor's note. 'Principled' folks don't tend to do stuff like that.
I know in the UK you could register as a conscientious objector and they'd have you do other stuff (like front-line medicine), but I'm not sure if there was anything equivalent in whatever armed forces your uncle should've been a part of.
I know because that person very clearly didn’t have such an ethical system. I knew him well enough to know he couldn’t give two shits about those ideals you’re talking about.
This may be difficult to hear, but he did what he did out of cowardice, not principles. I don’t want to go into further details because this is part of my family history, but there is a lot of evidence for it.
The point of my post wasn’t to say it’s always illegitimate to be a pacifist. It would be ridiculous to hold such a view. It was to say outward pacifism can be a cover for inward cowardice.
If we want to play the MBTI theorising game for fun, we might say that the two types of 'courage' are mostly exhibited by types with tertiary feeling functions, because that means the opposing orientation feeling function is in the PoLR slot. So...
Fi Tertiary & Fe PoLR (IxTJ) - I feel that this is right and I don't care what others feel. = 'against the group' courage. ISTJs are more likely to defend convention in this role, INTJs more likely to press for novelty.
Fe Tertiary & Fi PoLR (ExTP) - the group feels that this is right, and I don't care what I feel =. 'with the group' courage.
I'm not sure if that passes any sniff tests, but there we are.
Ti Tertiary and Te PoLR (IxFJ) - I think this is true/logical, and I don't care what works.
Te Tertiary and Ti PoLR (ExFP) - This works and I don't care if it's true/logical.
There is one problem (or a few) about that and, well, now you put me in a position where Im going to be against the current and I even hesitated to post because this is one of the reasons I got so much dislikes in personality-database to the point of me requesting my account to be deleted there (and I was angry that day). This is making me even reflect about my own courage thing, I have not considered to be much courageous but sometimes I have been mentioning being courage and I can even think some ways I go against the current, but I look for balance, some acts of courage can be quite stupid.
But, yep, I dont want to derail the thread into a MBTI theory discussion, so Im going to be short (or try). Most people on all forums, not only this but the whole MBTI community, are a believer of what we/most of you call "the stack". What is called the stack is actually more precisely the Harold-Grant cognitive function stack. The major problem of this stack is that, despite being so famous, it never showed up in tests and it doesnt have any "evidence" to back it up. About the "evidence" I am speaking of, MBTI is not at all like astrology and it actually has endorsement on scientific community (but it is considered soft science), but that only happened to what is called dichotomies, our dimensions (I/E,N/S,T/F,J/P). Cognitive functions were abandoned in the history of MBTI development (by MBTI Institute and Myers herself) due to lack of evidence. There is a guy called "Reckful" (INTJ), that is somewhat of a campaigner of this kind of information and he has good texts about that. However, most texts I have to quote about this are all out of this forum.
However, Im not a disbeliever of the cognitive functions. When I was presented with a more complete version of the last paragraph, I insisted on cognitive functions, but not on the Grant Stack. Instead, I have been rephrasing/re-arranging theory in a way that cognitive functions should be accepted by the same way dichotomy does. But I am out of the academic realm for the moment and I cant write an article that appears on Google Scholar, so what I have are 3 alternative theories, but only one has been posted (I spread this one in many sites and this one have a copy as well), one is almost done and the third is heavily underdeveloped. The difference is that Grant Stack have evidence against it and my alternative dont have them - although some can get that in the future.
Shortly, I have been gathering test data from different tests out there, have only read Jung Chapter X (the one I quoted on the second post) so far, but I have huge "database" about test results, crossing MBTI in different theories and all that stuff. As far as I can tell, I do have strong reasoning for the occurrence of what we call "pairs", even do they do not happen consistently enough. However, in no way there are signs of existence of a fixed tertiary function for type, at least not in the way we know it (INFJ tert Ti, INTJ tert Fi). Im more a believer that people realistically have multiple tertiary functions rather. About the 4th function, some websites describe it as "achile heels" and create descriptions more on its absence (INFJ and INTJ are "Se-tards"), while some other as a function properly used by the type. The correct in test results seems to be the tard approach, most INTJs and INFJs have Se in 7th or 8th position in test results, meaning that ESTJs in average, is the type with less Fi in average (its either ESTJ of ENTJ, I dont remeber), so ESTJ is more about absence of Fi. However, for the development of my 2nd method I found the achile heels to be quite unreliable: I got people with, for example, ISFP being Ti-tard instead of Te-tard.
And finally, not only me but mainly Reckful already entered in discussion with people against all this stuff. Mostly, people just say the tests are BS, deny stuff on Google Scholar and official MBTI stuff, making MBTI going back to astrology departament..
Thats it, and I did a resume and I havent actually got deep. This is a little off-topic although, sorry!
There's also the small matter of his using a fake doctor's note. 'Principled' folks don't tend to do stuff like that.
I know in the UK you could register as a conscientious objector and they'd have you do other stuff (like front-line medicine), but I'm not sure if there was anything equivalent in whatever armed forces your uncle should've been a part of.
Completely agree, Hos. But I think that here you’re touching a nerve when it comes to the ‘dangers’ associated with Fi. Internal valuation doesn’t necessarily entail that the principles will be ones we would consider to be noble. I think Nietzsche is a good example of that.
Completely agree, Hos. But I think that here you’re touching a nerve when it comes to the ‘dangers’ associated with Fi. Internal valuation doesn’t necessarily entail that the principles will be ones we would consider to be noble. I think Nietzsche is a good example of that.
If we want to play the MBTI theorising game for fun, we might say that the two types of 'courage' are mostly exhibited by types with tertiary feeling functions, because that means the opposing orientation feeling function is in the PoLR slot. So...
Fi Tertiary & Fe PoLR (IxTJ) - I feel that this is right and I don't care what others feel. = 'against the group' courage. ISTJs are more likely to defend convention in this role, INTJs more likely to press for novelty.
Fe Tertiary & Fi PoLR (ExTP) - the group feels that this is right, and I don't care what I feel =. 'with the group' courage.
I'm not sure if that passes any sniff tests, but there we are.
Ti Tertiary and Te PoLR (IxFJ) - I think this is true/logical, and I don't care what works.
Te Tertiary and Ti PoLR (ExFP) - This works and I don't care if it's true/logical.
The things is, Fe sometimes has a tough time confronting people/being direct. But out of all Fe users, I would say ExTP are the most likely to confront others/be direct/stand in opposition. They naturally enjoy the devil advocate position and can soften the directness very nicely with humour.
in my case, I would say Fe is cowardly, because I avoid conflict and have issues being direct with people. In ENTP it does not seem to be cowardly at all. They are braver than me and would say things I am not comfortable saying (but this could also be due to my enneagram 9).
But yes, I'd agree that IxTJ are the bravest in a sense that they have zero reservations about standing in opposition to the group.
Bravery in the battlefield is completely different, lol. I would say Se would be the bravest there. I am really not surprised that INFP would pull out of that, come on. Can you imagine poor sensitive INFPs with their child Si that wants to be comfortable and Se PoLR? Same goes for INTPs, by the way. Basically, Sam Tarley from Game of Thrones is how INxP would look in battlefield.
So it's not the case that Fi in itself is comfortable standing in opposition and not give a fuck about the tribe. If that was the case, than INFP/ISFP would be the bravest and most direct people. Seems to be repressed Fi in thinking people (thus TJs) that are the most "emotionally" brave (saying what they think/feel, not being peer pressured etc.).
