[PAX] - INFJ Ethics | INFJ Forum

[PAX] INFJ Ethics

Feelings

Feelings

Banned
Sep 27, 2009
4,525
644
245
MBTI
INTJ
Enneagram
-
I have a question about how INFJ ethics works. As I understand, INFJs don't have a static set of ethics. They are fluid and changing based on how they feel on a case by case basis. Sometimes I see things that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. An INFJ will have no opinion or no reaction to some things that are way worse, yet have a strong reaction and opinion/judgement on something that's way lighter. And their beliefs and opinions will change, seemingly arbitrarily, at different points in time.

I have a theory that INFJs have a strong pack mentality. They have a strong propensity to hold the same beliefs as those they feel close to. This is probably due to strong empathy, automatic tendencies to fit in and belong, and a feeling of oneness with their group. As far as ethics goes, there's no 'center'. They are chameleons that change color to be in harmony with their surroundings.

Opinions or improvements on the theory? Alternate explanations?
 
I disagree on pretty much all points you have made, but of course I'm only speaking on my behalf and not on the behalf of others. I march to the beat of my own drum. I always knew I was different and after the many futile efforts I made to "fit in" with others, I threw my hands in the air and said "fuck it." I am much happier being me. The people I surround myself with IRL are those who can respect differences. I actually have a lot of close friends and I am proud to admit that. So thinking these people are a "dime a dozen" regardless of MBTI is false. (I will say a lot of it has to do with age though.)

Pack mentality? No way. If my friend digs herself in a hole, she will have to dig herself out. It's absurd to expect others to come to your defense when you have done wrong ... I certainly don't expect my friends to do it for me.

I actually do have a standard of ethics that I live by: "I treat others as I want to be treated." I am not one to be critical of others in a malicious manner or to tear them down. I find that incredibly rude. Where one person can do it lightly, it would be something I would lose sleep over. If I am critical, my intent is to be delicately constructive and helpful.

Where it comes to opinions, you will only see strong opinions from me on issues that resonate deeply within me or issues that I know A LOT about. Often times I won't share these opinions on matters that are highly flammable. I do this b/c I really abhor people who get pleasure out of "getting a rise" out of others (including myself.) I enjoy conversations and learning, not arguing over who is right.

So let me redefine "They are chameleons that change color to be in harmony with their surroundings" as it pertains to me: When I change color to include myself, it means I am shutting down or introverting. I don't want to be a part of what is going on but somehow I am forced to be there. That is how I am able to remain in harmony in a volatile setting. I can't think straight if my adrenaline is on full throttle and I fear what venom will spew from my mouth (I can validate it will always be something I regret later.)
 
I try to always consider the Golden Rule, and live by giving my all while expecting nothing in return. I make exceptions for some nasties, but I try to keep spitefulness out of my repertoire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: knight in battle
INFJs sense the underlying feelings of a group, but they do not support the status quo. They do have a center, but the center is refined as time progresses when new information/experience enters their lives.

The center is his alternative-seeking mind (Ni) as informed by his environment (Fe) and how he feels (Fe). His expressed attitudes may reflect the group's, but his inner values are different than his diplomatically expressed self. (To be sure, the INFJ can also become expressly defiant or rude - verbally or nonverbally.) He adopts values as he progresses and rejects the ones that do not align with his internal value system (Ti). Because Ti is tertiary, he requires time, concentration, and isolation to develop it. (INTJs express values based on the social context but only after considering the alternatives of how he wishes to express it. ISTJs does this without necessarily considering multiple possibilities.)

Once the INFJ develops Ti to a new level, he adopts those values and, if necessary, changes his group affiliation and expressed opinions accordingly. Because Fe is a preferred function, he feels his environment and the effects it has on himself - not just on others. He will use Fe to express his renewed views, sometimes lightly or metaphorical to avoid hurting anyone (he does not want to see anyone hurt - except those he believes are corrupt according to his evolving Ti-induced values) until his weak Ti has time to think about his subjectively evaluated alternatives and his Ni sees no other alternatives. In this agitated state he uses Fe once again to express anger at the established opinions of the group or society.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: grt$5vb
it is true that i do not adhere to an absolute moral imperative. what am i, some sort of legislator? and i learned some time ago that i will always have more to learn about things as complex as right and wrong. but i think and feel very deeply about these things. how much i do so in relation to a specific matter, and the ways in which i display or act on the outcomes of this, depends not on some community or group, but on any number of other factors, for example how relevant the issue is to me personally, but more so things such as, the energy i have to spare in relation to what i might hope to achieve.

having spent so long on the forum yourself, i am very surprised that you seem not to have noticed how fiercely independant our minds are, how we barely agree on the difference between night and day, and how stubborn we can be in our own special convictions. i wonder wheher you have not been paying attention at all, or you are temporarily blinded by some internal prejudice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir and grt$5vb
invisible said:
it is true that i do not adhere to an absolute moral imperative. what am i, some sort of legislator? and i learned some time ago that i will always have more to learn about things as complex as right and wrong. but i think and feel very deeply about these things. how much i do so in relation to a specific matter, and the ways in which i display or act on the outcomes of this, depends not on some community or group, but on any number of other factors, for example how relevant the issue is to me personally, but more so things such as, the energy i have to spare in relation to what i might hope to achieve.

having spent so long on the forum yourself, i am very surprised that you seem not to have noticed how fiercely independant our minds are, how we barely agree on the difference between night and day, and how stubborn we can be in our own special convictions. i wonder wheher you have not been paying attention at all, or you are temporarily blinded by some internal prejudice.
Click to expand...

You know what you need is a status quo. Let me help you.
 
Feelings said:
I have a question about how INFJ ethics works. As I understand, INFJs don't have a static set of ethics. They are fluid and changing based on how they feel on a case by case basis. Sometimes I see things that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. An INFJ will have no opinion or no reaction to some things that are way worse, yet have a strong reaction and opinion/judgement on something that's way lighter. And their beliefs and opinions will change, seemingly arbitrarily, at different points in time.

I have a theory that INFJs have a strong pack mentality. They have a strong propensity to hold the same beliefs as those they feel close to. This is probably due to strong empathy, automatic tendencies to fit in and belong, and a feeling of oneness with their group. As far as ethics goes, there's no 'center'. They are chameleons that change color to be in harmony with their surroundings.

Opinions or improvements on the theory? Alternate explanations?
Click to expand...

i can't agree with most of this either
a strong pack mentality is not something i could even begin to relate to as an infj. loner mentality is more like it.
as for the rest, it seems you are describing another type entirely.
 
Pack mentality? Do you even pay attention? They remove themselves from packs even if the pack agrees with them!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sweaverit and dneecey
First, let me processes whether or not this is an attempt at trolling... that may take a while so I guess I'll continue.

To respond to your post now - What rock have you been living under in this forum?? We're stubborn, self-righteous pricks when you get us started on our values and ethics.

The only way I can remotely think of that a 3rd party would conclude that our ethics are "fluid" is that we don't bother getting bogged down on the little details. We might believe 100% in something but we're not going to bother nitpicking the details other people might want to debate. If anything, we take more of a macroscopic view on an issue vs a microscopic one. So any aloofness you might see in that aspect is just our way of politely saying "f*** off" and "don't bother me".

That pack mentality you speak of is only a surface illusion. I'm not going to sit there and make enemies on every street corner throughout the day and get angry at people I meet simply because I disagree with their values. In truth, I probably have a lot of people out there most others would call "friends" (I call them acquaintances) even though they have 0 in common with me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir and Blind Bandit
When you say a "pack mentality" you are referring to a group shift in ideals. I think you get this impression because of our propensity to defend our fellows. In other words I think INFJs feel a need to protect the people they share spaces with, that doesn't necessarily mean they agree with those people nor that they share their ethics. It simply means that they want to protect that person from getting hurt.

For example pretend that I am staunchly against say Lerxst's views on the world (I'm not, but for the theoretical purposes of this argument lets say I am.) since we share this space and have for awhile I feel a sense of familiarity with him and if a new member came into this forum and started directly attacking lerxst making slanderous remarks, saying hateful things, and attacking him etc, I would stick up for him. Especially if he felt at all threatened by these types of things. That would not at all mean that my stance had changed and that I suddenly agreed with everything he stood for or said, it wouldn't even necessarily mean I liked him at all. I think that is were you're getting confused.

Just using you as a hypothetical example here [MENTION=2890]Lerxst[/MENTION] because you posted before I did.
 
Because INFJs want the feeling of camaraderie and consensus, they will dress the same and talk the same as their surrounding companions. They do not agree with influential or loudly expressive figures, especially if they feel that those influential persons are inordinately arrogant, undemocratic, or corrupt. INFJs are not completely the same. Look around. They will often not stand out in general demeanor, but they can be outspoken or influential if they have weighed the personal costs of being so.

And yes, I'm speaking for the pack.
 
Yeah, I can't say this theory reflects my experience. If anything, ethics tended to be a point of contention among my friends and I. Personally, in response to my feelings of empathy, I would tend to generate alternative hypotheses of what a friend might do to remedy a situation causing them distress. This would sometimes lead to suggestions divergent from some of the beliefs they were operating on (which had often been acting to entrench their presenting problem), this being done in service of targeting perhaps a more long-term pursuit of their best interests. In short, I would use insight into a friend's personality to determine what I thought might be best for them long-term, which sometimes conflicted with their currently held beliefs.

I don't think I explained that very clearly... Oh well!

Edit:
To add a general comment...
I guess my impression would be that the "N" in INFJ would lead to the generation of theoretical alternatives with regards to morality, as opposed to the acceptance of beliefs in close proximity; that sounds more like an "S" function, if anything.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with some of your points as well. I'm new to this, so I'll speak for myself. I don't think I have a pack mentality at all, but I will consider and learn from my surroundings. I don't like to put others down and try to keep an open mind, but my values and ethics and right and wrong exist. I'm very singular and stand up for the things I believe I should stand up for and sometimes I care about things even when I don't act out on them. I perceive the world very independently and I think you just have to expect the unexpected.
 
Not that it is particularly relevant, but I feel like pointing out that chameleons only rarely change colors to blend in with their surroundings. Changing colors is primarily a tool for social signalling. They darken when angered in order to appear more intimidating, and males show lighter more colorful patterns only to court females.

If you want a creature than changes colors for camouflage, then you should go with an octopus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir and sweaverit
[MENTION=2648]magister343[/MENTION] you're like a walking encyclopedia, is there anything you don't know the origins of? o_O
 
Exactly. They change colors when they need to show anger or signal a change in mood. In other words, they'll follow you to the edge of the cliff but not jump with you.
 
The "no static sense of ethics" thing is more a problem of unhealthy Fe Dominant types (ExFJ). In INFJs Fe form a team with Ti that is subordinate to Ni. Fe adapts Ni ideas so that they work in the social context.
 
When it comes to ethics of the INFJ its hard to describe as it is not black and white like most dialogues. In my opinion it is related to experience, relation, long term goal/plan and environment rather than interpersonal relationships, childhood bombardment or group consensus. Firstly the idea of an 'individualist' personality wanting to adhere to groups is ridiculous to say the least.
Within my own experience I have appeared to adhere to group mainly out of convenience or used as a 'step' to a further goal. This sounds sociopathic in description but its not done in a cold manner. This is where I think INFJ ethic lay. rather than having a 'pinned down' set of rules we have a pinned down system to govern the differences of different group expectation. For example not wanting to take from people their dignity when confronted with high intellect (I hate people looking down on others) or success How this is executed is entirely individual based on the factors mentioned earlier. Another I see, is a pattern of the notion of universal harmony or sustained understanding, how these translate to set in stone ethics is fluid but the origin all the same. INFJ is a system based personality which is why we/they are harder to understand in terms of set codes because in order for systems to flourish, they need to evolve.

my analogy of this is maths, if maths stayed the same we wouldn't have gone to the moon or discovered the wonderment of the universe, but the numbers are the same as they have always been.
 
If "ethics" arises from Thinking, then Ni/Fe is subordinate to the Ti process of progressively solidified ethics - unless you suppose that Fe and Ti are subordinate to Ni, in which case Ni is the originator of INFJ ethics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back