I have to know, are there any other INFJ's that do not naturally make decisions for reasons related to morality? For whom moral considerations came later in life?
INFJ and morality
- Thread starter Aaron Hepi
- Start date
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,625
- 247,712
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Aren't humans generally morally driven? It's a human thing. You can pretend you are making more intellectually driven decisions, but intellectualism is tied to morality. Not sure what other ways you might be guided. Morality is present, like air. Unless you're an arsenic consuming sociopath.
Im asking about conscious moral decisions. But in particular, a preference for "moral" judgements. Im not sure of truth of what you said, so I wont comment.
I have INFJ relatives.
I get the impression that INFJs are more moral when thinking about personal morality (either in terms of themselves, or in terms of others); but put them in a social situation, and morality seems to disappear in favour of something in the spectrum between kindness and snarky-ness. Apologies/regrets come later.
I get the impression that INFJs are more moral when thinking about personal morality (either in terms of themselves, or in terms of others); but put them in a social situation, and morality seems to disappear in favour of something in the spectrum between kindness and snarky-ness. Apologies/regrets come later.
D
Deleted member 10171
*shakes head - tut tut* Absolutely not!!
Are you naysaying that in social situations, INFJs aren't focused on establishing harmony, or indignantly ostracising, (or something inbetween)? I have very rarely (virtually never) encountered an INFJ discussing the morality/ethics of a present situation with those involved. Instead, they are either trying to make people happy, or just tut-tutting. Ie. Fe in action.
*shakes head - tut tut* Absolutely not!!
Ok. So what are your thoughts? Why would caring about morality come so late in development for an INFJ?
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,625
- 247,712
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Personal morality is the only morality generally for INFJs. We hone our ability in this regard and hopefully, eventually, with some painful growing, become more adept at applying such things outwardly in social situations. It is one of many struggles for INFJs.
This isn't really an exclusive type based process of growth, but more just growth as a person. INFJs may be slower than some though, due to such strong personal convictions coupled with introverted tendencies. Like the INTJ knows what they know and social circumstances be dammed. That's why they come across as intimidating. INFJs know what they feel and this results in a lot of awkward foot in mouth moments for us.
This isn't really an exclusive type based process of growth, but more just growth as a person. INFJs may be slower than some though, due to such strong personal convictions coupled with introverted tendencies. Like the INTJ knows what they know and social circumstances be dammed. That's why they come across as intimidating. INFJs know what they feel and this results in a lot of awkward foot in mouth moments for us.
This doesnt answer my original question. In fact, I dont even know what question you are answering. It seems as though you think that all INFJ's prefer to understand the world in terms of personal morals. But this is not the case with me.
D
Deleted member 10171
I'm not speaking on behalf of other injf's. My response was in relation to what you wrote,,,,"kindness and snarky-ness. Apologies/regrets come later".....hence the tut-tutting because that kind of behaviour (regardless of the subject matter) is incongruent to who/how I am in social situations. Authenticity is a trait I value highly (in myself foremost) so it would be a stench for me to violate one of my own principles.
Harmony in social situations is important but conflict also has its place and I'm OK with both. Personally I would rather not say/do something that compels me to behave in a contradictory manner.
I understand the spectrum you're presenting. I think that's a clever observation of Ni-Fe actually. I usually am at those extremes, or somewhere in between.
The thing is it takes a lot to get to the ostracizing extreme (if every time we talk there's conflict, and we can't see eye to eye on anything, I'd just as well not talk to you), but "tut-tutting" is generally how I express that I'm not morally or ethically alright with something.
It's not that I'm opposed to discussing why a situation isn't moral or ethical if someone crosses that line with me. It just doesn't cross my mind that someone can take a morally different position on something. I just kind of walk around assuming everyone has the same universally understood set of moral principals that I do. When someone crosses a value I feel strongly about, they'll know. I guess tut-tutting is my initial instinct, not discussion. This tends to happen around things like manners or with how someone talks to another person, or something else I feel like people just shouldn't do.
I am pretty middle of the road with most current events. I enjoy listening to both sides, playing the devil's advocate, and will take an "agree to disagree" approach if we can't find common ground.
But going with group think for the sake of group think isn't my thing. Am I people pleasing? Yes. I believe there's a way to disagree with something without being a dick. Will I go along with something I deem morally unethical for group acceptance? No. (Hence the ostracizing bit, but in this scenario I'd probably ostracize myself and just find a new group).
On a side note, I think this post has far too few snarky remarks, I can't imagine the sort of nefarious, unmoral situations that happen during your family gatherings, and I don't really understand the sort of moral conduct necessary for playing host during a family gathering.
I understand the spectrum you're presenting. I think that's a clever observation of Ni-Fe actually. I usually am at those extremes, or somewhere in between.
The thing is it takes a lot to get to the ostracizing extreme (if every time we talk there's conflict, and we can't see eye to eye on anything, I'd just as well not talk to you), but "tut-tutting" is generally how I express that I'm not morally or ethically alright with something.
It's not that I'm opposed to discussing why a situation isn't moral or ethical if someone crosses that line with me. It just doesn't cross my mind that someone can take a morally different position on something. I just kind of walk around assuming everyone has the same universally understood set of moral principals that I do. When someone crosses a value I feel strongly about, they'll know. I guess tut-tutting is my initial instinct, not discussion. This tends to happen around things like manners or with how someone talks to another person, or something else I feel like people just shouldn't do.
I am pretty middle of the road with most current events. I enjoy listening to both sides, playing the devil's advocate, and will take an "agree to disagree" approach if we can't find common ground.
But going with group think for the sake of group think isn't my thing. Am I people pleasing? Yes. I believe there's a way to disagree with something without being a dick. Will I go along with something I deem morally unethical for group acceptance? No. (Hence the ostracizing bit, but in this scenario I'd probably ostracize myself and just find a new group).
On a side note, I think this post has far too few snarky remarks, I can't imagine the sort of nefarious, unmoral situations that happen during your family gatherings, and I don't really understand the sort of moral conduct necessary for playing host during a family gathering.
At family gatherings, my brother and I can't discuss some topics, because my INFJ mother (and a few others) think we are arguing, and becomes emotional. If we are taking two sides, and one convinces the other, Mom will get the impression that whoever ended up agreeing was somehow a victim of nastiness. Disapproving looks follow.
My brother and I just stick to interesting stuff, but not figuring-out stuff at family gatherings, so that INFJ relatives don't get angsty, trying to make us agree to disagree, when in reality we were both enjoying the discussion.
INFJs never understand how disagreement-discussions aren't personal conflicts for others.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,625
- 247,712
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
I was merely contemplating on the overall growth of an INFJ. At early stages of development, I was only capable of really examining my own personal morality. As a child I was more or less devoid of moral considerations. I imagine this is the case for most. As we move into adulthood we come to understand relational ideologies and become better at making moral judgements and moral reasoning. I didn't think this would be such a difficult thing to grasp and it is most definitely related to your original question in some way.
To imply that I believe all INFJs prefer personal morality as a locus of control shows a lack of empathy or understanding on your part. People are all different and at different stages of development.
As for your original question, perhaps you could word it more clearly or expound upon exactly what you are looking for. Pretty sure I am on the right track though. Some INFJs don't learn or establish a separation between personal morals and making appropriate moral judgments for the benefit of others. Blindly using Fe under the assumption that it is benefitting those around them regardless of their own opinions. It's not a type thing but a human thing as I said before. INFJs just happen to use Fe which makes it a bit more in your face. Fe dom users suffer this pitfall more. You will take their kindness and you will fucking like it. At least with INFJs they will recoil if they sense a wrongdoing. Fe dom users may instead engage even more in an attempt to repair the situation. The cognitive functions play a role in everyone's growth in learning and understanding morality. Te users will try to fit people and circumstances together methodically. That doesn't always work either, but it might be a bit less "noisy" for the (un)willing participants.
I've gone off on some more tangents. Morality is hard. So is your question.
Do I "naturally" make moral-based decisions? When it comes to common and personal morality, yes as do most people. When I was younger, no it was all emotional based.
Do I make moral judgments in social circumstances? I've gotten better but it is not natural. It is predominately dependent upon my comfortability with the people involved. A lack of comfortability increases snark and assholery.
There must be some sort of cultural barrier because I still can not understand how what you said is related to my original question. Thanks for your input in either case.
His answer is that the younger you are the less you make morality based decisions. Also you are coming off as incredibly rude, must be a culture barrier.
Haha, as a general rule of thumb - very true. Yet indeed, but this goes without saying as there are always exceptions to stereotypes, depending on one's background and personal perspective, one can either be more adverse to disagreement-discussions or comfortable enough to engage with them.
I personally prefer to avoid disagreement-discussions at all (exception bellow), and almost always with people I don't know too well, finding some way not to compromise myself and to play the role of Switzerland, but without consenting to either side of the fence whilst offering my support for aspects of both sides. I'll do this by trying to point out a common theme held by both parties so as to end a debate going nowhere or that's beginning to get emotionally charged, or even just for the sake of finding common ground. Yet for those I know well I will happily have a disagreement-discussion and will be an enthusiastic participant, trying to win over the other side by all means possible (whilst getting out the Fe glitter to soften the fact I'm disagreeing with them) but if I am shown to be wrong I will slowly begin to back off and concede via way of agreeing with the other person.
I've two INTJ friends, one of whom gets quite aggressive and emotional when his established perspective is challenged. Yet I've found he doesn't get as razed up (I can literally feel the Zeus storm raging within him) when I disagree with him, as opposed to when my ENFP friend does. I think the Fe approach and a slightly more rational way of speaking (since I'm like this anyway, but I cater to who I'm talking to) makes disagreement more digestible for my INTJ friend as opposed to the emotional forthright and at times illogically communicated message of my ENFP friend (whose stance I often understand, and can present in a way more digestible for my INTJ friend).
In fact this same INTJ friend is often disconcerted with the very passionate disagreement-discussions between my ENFP friend and I, even though for us it's just the way we communicate and even if we fight we get over it in a few seconds. Yet understandably so, because it's like an emotional tornado. Thus if I were to stereotype one could say the INFJ naturally struggles to see how two people boldly and directly rationally disagreeing on a topic can simply be discussing as opposed to being 'at war'. Whilst the INTJ streotypically (provide a contrary view if you disagree) naturally struggles to see how two people who are seemingly emotionally engaged in 'a war' can simply be have a harmless discussion which simply involves so much passion because both parties are passionate.
I think stereotypes are often unfairly boo-hooed as if they are 'evil things'. For so long as one acknowledges that a stereotype is a generalisation which is generally the case or which highlights general truths without being by any means definitive, and it is not used to confine people to it, then a stereotype can be a useful reference point of departure. The problem isn't with stereotypes, but with a stance which holds stereotypes as infallible fact and dogma. [Edit: I should add a clause, stereotypes are okay if they describe an actual general truth, thus distinguishing between a true and false stereotype, the latter which makes a generalisation out of something not representative of the majority/thing].
Slightly off topic, so I'll redirect it and 'roughly' address the OP: There's going to be a stereotype of the INFJ (as with all people and 'types') in regards to their decision making processes in the realm of morality - that is, an internal conflict between having set moral values (Ni-Ti) and compromising those same very values in the realm of action by choosing 'the opposite' or 'something less than the held ideal' for the sake of 'not rocking the boat' (Fe).
Yet before using this stereotype as a point of departure, there is the stereotype of being a human being - and that is, that as a human being biologically and rationally develops from childhood through to adulthood, [generally] one's moral reasoning and volitional strength develops also so that one is more able to act in accord with one's internal value system. ( [MENTION=251]Wyote[/MENTION] mentions something similar). I say more able to because the ability to do so is not the same as actually doing so. Being more rational doesn't determine one's free will in following one's reason and sense of right, it just gives one the means to be able to freely and consciously choose what one sees as right. Many compromises are made due to 'self-seeking' or 'other-pleasing' based on passion and desires (wants), even if our reason tells us we ought to act otherwise. As the classical Greek perspective states: a virtue is a good habit, and thus a virtue is increased by means of repeatedly choosing 'the right' so that it becomes a habit - second nature. I'd thus say that acting on the basis of perceived morality - in accord with whatever internal value system one has - comes more natural to anyone who has made a habit of so choosing/doing. Yet this kind of 'naturalness' in making decisions based on morality will often feel like we're going against our own grain (i.e. feels awkward, hard etc.) but the decision itself becomes easier and more natural if we've habitualised ourselves to acting thus, even if the experience of carrying out such an act still may remain to feel 'unnatural'.
Personally I always grew up with an internal value system which was imparted to me. As I grew I made this value system my own in a rational sense, yet I easily made decisions based on what would 'please-others' when I was a kid, so that I often acted against my conscience because of wanting 'to not rock the boat' (as do almost all kids, but each 'type' perhaps in different ways). In my adolescence this conflict persisted. My internal value system was solidified and more thorough, yet my decisions were often made to please others as opposed to act in accord with my values. In my later adolescence this internal conflict was reduced, but there were times, based on certain relationships that I acted out of 'self-seeking' and 'other-pleasing'. In the past few years my life and its decisions have been in accord with my internal value system, yet there is always times (everyday in some little way) where I act contrary to this because I am a fallible human being. This marked shift in living out of decisions made on the basis of morality has not being due to 'getting older' even though that is a factor among others, but it has been caused by a series of decisions on my part in the way I live and how I live (in my view aided by the essential aid of divine grace, but there's no point debating that as one can choose to read what I've said in their own humanistic or alternative spiritual view).
Last edited:
Disagreement discussions can seem pretty bullish, especially to the conflict adverse. It's not really fun to hear people go back and forth when all you really want is everyone to get along. I get how that would be crappy for you and your bro, but I understand how they wouldn't want that to be table conversation during a get together.
I can appreciate a good disagreement discussion. There's just a time and a place for it.
Disagreement discussions can seem pretty bullish, especially to the conflict adverse. It's not really fun to hear people go back and forth when all you really want is everyone to get along. I get how that would be crappy for you and your bro, but I understand how they wouldn't want that to be table conversation during a get together.
I can appreciate a good disagreement discussion. There's just a time and a place for it.
^
Social situations are not subject to morality, so much as to feelings for INFJs. At my place, discussions will go all evening, across many topics, from many different perspectives. Moral issues are often an element of these awesomely stimulating discussions.
Unconsciously, I think I have avoided inviting Fe users, so that they don't disrespect the other guests by wanting to shut everyone up, imposing the sentiments like those quoted.
On these forums, some of these elements often play out. At times two things happen:
1. The discussion topics become very superficial (even insipid), about topics so subjective that it is virtually impossible for anyone ever to agree/disagree. Eg. What is your dream holiday? What color is your animal spirit? Etc.
2. Two, or more people will try to have a real discussion about a serious question, and dozens of perpetual lurkers will suddenly bombard the thread with derailing, or tut-tutting posts.
Last edited: