And they're evil because they're killing people, right? Because killing people is evil.
So 'killing is bad' rates higher than 'animal cruelty is bad', or maybe a more generic 'cruelty is bad'. In the case of conflicts between values, killing is bad would win as its higher, so animal cruelty gets changed to compensate (or not, and then you get cognitive dissonance).
Yes exactly. It's the individual's decision as to which he weighs to be higher. This is why you can't pinpoint an Fi user's values down or how they will act on your typical internet profile.
Originally Posted by Costrin
Yeah, that's one thing I noticed. Fi judges according to its values, but its not consciously aware of the criteria it uses. That can only be inferred in retrospect by analyzing the judgments it gives.
Sounds similiar actually to the way my Ti understands the essence of something, and judges based on that. It isn't easily expressed the way Te logic is.
It is very similar to Ti in how it changes I imagine. If you are proven that your logic is flawed, then you change your logic correct? It's a similar process.
well...individual rights to freedom is a very significant one for me but if someone were to abuse those rights by infringing on someone else's than my strong need for fair and equal treatment would override that and i'd become proactive to protect those rights of that person....so...yes. i guess they get shuffled around based on priority.
is that even a relevant answer? i have no idea.
There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.
Fi feels very contextual. I think that is where some people confuse it. You'll notice when most Fi types get triggered they attack concepts, and try to clarify the value judgment. The aim is resolution, to minimise damage. Remember Ps tend to be big picture also, so the damage considered can often be a long way from the source. And they are sometimes quite utilitarian, which isn't always a good thing if you are perceived to be the source of a significant amount of damage.
It tends to get likened a bit to Si and the thinking that we learn this is wrong, then react when we see it. I know at least for NFPs that is way too linear. It is far more of a weighting the scales in the moment, and seeing damaging consequences.
I suppose the values at the end of all that are pretty constant though, and seem to relate to very core things. So what is seen to cause damage, etc. may be redefined, but the dislike of personal damage would be the value and be constant.
Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.
I have two main values: 'harm none' and 'respect each others freedom'. But those are applied like a set of scales almost, as reality isn't black or white. If I used them in a rigid way, I wouldn't set foot outside anymore, for I might crush an ant, and dog leashes would make me furious. So its a delicate balance, of what reality allows, and who else has to be taken into account.
I think mine are pretty changeable, because they are constantly, and I do mean on a day to day basis, being re-evaluated with new insights or new information.
I think this illustrates one of the main differences between NFPs and SFPs. From what I have gathered, SFPs are very open to new activities, but not nearly as open to new ideas. This has been a source of conflict with me and my ex since the beginning of our relationship. My philosophies on stuff (values! crap, why do i keep wearing out spell-check?) stay much more consistent. So, whereas someone could tell me "hey, there's this great new cool thing called spanorking, let's go do it" and I'm like "Yeah! Let's go!", she was much more hesitant. And conversely, she would be like "I'm a vegetarian this week because of this new information" and I would be like "Meh."