Something to consider - F vs T

[Kora]

Not true. There are a lot of other things you can do. Rehabilitation is one. Ignoring it is another.

When you talk about searching for what's behind a crime you descend into a highly subjective area. We will perhaps never have a model which can perfectly compute cause and effect in human behaviour. We have to work with what we have and our decisions must be pragmatic and for the greater good.
This would tend towards a generalist approach, rather than an individualistic one.

But all this is a digression...

Rehabilition is not less subjective than searching for what's behind a crime. It's done by persons, so it will always be subjective.
Then again, I'm not saying that justice shouldn't be executed that way. Just that if for really solving things, it should be known what's behind all, what causes people to commit crimes and see what can be done with that.
Just punishing doesn't seem to work very much. Criminals are not afraid by punishment, and you can see that in the US where there's death penalty. But of course, trying to clean society is impossible. That's why I know that what I think is futile.

 

["?"]

What would that look like in practice?

Simple if someone is considering some sort of disciplinary action be taken, thinkers are usually going to say this is our policy/practice and it should be considered from the point. Feelers are going to consider the circumstances of why the person did what they did and consider an alternate action based on the individual.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Everyone should be treated as an individual. That's fair.

If I murder someone the circumstances should be taken into account. All murder is not the same. It's not like treating people as individuals means being soft on them. It means taking into account the situation and taking appropriate action.
Treating someone individually is not the same as having bias.

This. How can circumstances not be taken into consideration?

These rules and policy are based on circumstances, otherwise we'd have no such thing as degrees for murder.

 

[booyalab]

This. How can circumstances not be taken into consideration?

These rules and policy are based on circumstances, otherwise we'd have no such thing as degrees for murder.

No, they're based on precedents.

There are some laws that take circumstances into account, but that doesn't mean that people have to agree with them. For instance, I think the the insanity and post-partum depression defenses are bullshit.

 

[SaltyWench]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

Everyone should be treated fairly, with respect for their individuality.

 

[booyalab]

I think everyone should be treated equally unfairly with special consideration paid to their unique individual needs, in order to maximize injustice and pain.

 

[Jack Flak]

I think everyone should be treated equally unfairly with special consideration paid to their unique individual needs, in order to maximize injustice and pain.

In order to maximize injustice, the amount of pain dispensed should be random.

 

[booyalab]

It's random, but only to those without my knowledge of individual uniqueness.

 

[substitute]

F, imo, is more "Everyone should be treated well nicely." Not to say it's 100% accurate.

As usual, I'm late to the party. But I'd make one adjustment to this, as above.

I mean, it's Te that minimizes individuality, not Ti. To me individuality is very important and Fi is my weakest function. Plus, I've known Fe types to have the mentality that everyone should be treated their definition of 'well', that is, how they believe everyone wants to be treated. Often without actual consideration of the individual's quirks and whatever.

So in fact, I don't think T is about fairness even. If anything is about equality, treating people EQUALLY (weakness: forgetting individual differences of need), then it's Xe. Whilst Xi is about individuality (weakness: not considering place of own actions in wider context).

The T and F difference I'd say would be more like this:

T - everyone should be treated (and be expected to behave) reasonably
F - everyone should be treated (and be expected to behave) nicely

 

[INTJMom]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

I think everyone should be treated fairly,
and to treat every person on an individual basis is to play favorites.

If a law is established stating that the speed limit is 30 on a certain road, and I am the only one driving 30 on that road and everyone else is getting away with driving 40, that makes me mad,
especially when some of the people going 40 are rude to me and tailgate me because I am obeying the law.

 

[Grayscale]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

i say, we need to take a deeper look

*gets out screwdriver and crescent wrench*


although lots of people have given more insightful responses, i actually think the OP is going in the right direction (in a certain sense) than those and i will explain why.

the reason the concept of fairness exists is because it creates a baseline for everyone to adhere to, and allows society to function better overall.

the only way to be truly fair is to ignore exceptions, that is true objectivity. there is a fundamental difference between needing to expand the baseline to cover such exceptions in a way that can still apply to everyone and actually making an exception to said baseline.

there will always be people that claim exception, but the reason they shouldn't is because statistically, for every one thing they think they should be exempt of there will be far more things that other people could claim exemption from. although it might be stupid and inefficient, ultimately as long as everyone is held against the same objective, unconditional guideline, it is fair.

now, if i had to correlate this to T/F, I would say that T-type will more readily grasp this importance (i cant help but word it that way, im a T afterall) while an F-type will not, thus they would be more inclined to treat each person individually... which is intrinsically unfair and un-objective.



with that said, it is more considerate of each person's feelings of individuality... most people do not understand the aforementioned, perhaps it is truly fair, then, to consider each unfairly, since being truly objective is actually out of the norm, which would be unfair!

what's more fair, perpetuating unfairness to everyone fairly, or being unfair in the sense that you are one person who judges everyone fairly when most people dont.

errrrr, its friday, i shouldnt have to think this hard

 

[Salomé]

the only way to be truly fair is to ignore exceptions, that is true objectivity.

Too simplistic. Exceptions to laws prove their inadequacy. That is why we have case law to revise/supplement statutes based on reasoned judgments.

...although it might be stupid and inefficient, ultimately as long as everyone is held against the same objective, unconditional guideline, it is fair

How can anything stupid and inefficient be fair. Surely, it is unfair - but equally unfair to everyone.

 

[substitute]

I still think Fe and Te are more about fairness than Ti and Fi... like I said I reckon if it's about fair and individual then the distinction is between Je and Ji. If it's between T and F then you've got to think about what Te and Ti, and then Fe and Fi have in common.

An ENFJ I know, when taking issue with somebody and suggesting an alternative course of action will always finish the sentence with "Okay? Is that fair?" as a rhetorical question, as in, she knows we will agree that it's fair and on that basis find it impossible to disagree. I think fairness is a big deal for Fe types. Whereas I think Te types are more about justice, which is a slightly different thing.

I think what Fe and Fi both have in common is that they both prefer to have positive emotional atmospheres, whilst Te and Ti have in common that they're less sensitive to emotional atmospheres and prefer to have logical, efficient atmospheres.

As a T, I don't particularly value fairness, personally... it usually entails some sort of compromise, and I'm not good at compromise. As I've said elsewhere, compromise means nobody gets what they want I'd rather totally give in and let the other person have their way so that at least SOMEBODY does, than have half a loaf - that is, if I can't get THEM to totally give in lol

 

[Grayscale]

Too simplistic. Exceptions to laws prove their inadequacy. That is why we have case law to revise/supplement statutes based on reasoned judgments.

already addressed that:

there is a fundamental difference between needing to expand the baseline to cover such exceptions in a way that can still apply to everyone and actually making an exception to said baseline.

How can anything stupid and inefficient be fair. Surely, it is unfair - but equally unfair to everyone.

sure you're not an F? just kidding! (just kidding Fs! dont kill me.)

too many people connotate"fair" with some sort of good outcome, like a kid who doesnt get their way "that's not fair!"

it's not about good or bad, it's about objective equality. this is an important concept, so we start with this... then we expand on our rules to handle the exceptions that come up so that they can address them in a way that still applies to everybody the same. ideally, we'd like to reach a point that we dont have to do anything stupid or inefficient for the sake of equality, that would be the ideal. but most of the time it is going to be maintaining this balance for everyone at the cost of the potential benefits lost by the minority.

 

[Grayscale]

II think fairness is a big deal for Fe types. Whereas I think Te types are more about justice, which is a slightly different thing.

aha, but is something that makes everyone feel like they got a fair deal still necessarily equal? are we measuring equality in a logical and quantifiable method or by perceived experiences? that would be entirely too complicated!

and anyways, outside discussing this, i can be completely unfair and i dont follow anything if i dont agree with the spirit of the law and i know i can get away with it that's Machiavellian fairness! so what do i know?

okay, it's 5:00, im clocking my brain out.uch:

 

[Jack Flak]

aha, but is something that makes everyone feel like they got a fair deal still necessarily equal?

I would assume you mention that because we both see through this transparent ploy easily, and don't tend to appreciate it.

 

[substitute]

that's why i drew a distinction between fairness and justice, between fairness and equality.

 

[Salomé]

it's not about good or bad, it's about objective equality. this is an important concept, so we start with this...

been thinking about this and this distinction between treating everyone the same/"fairly" and treating everyone as an individual is less about T vs F then E vs I, isn't it?

 

[mlittrell]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

So vague they are both true. I personally want both, and would not be able to choose one if I had to. I know many Ts (ENTPs) who would agree with me.

 

[Xander]

As usual, I'm late to the party. But I'd make one adjustment to this, as above.

I mean, it's Te that minimizes individuality, not Ti. To me individuality is very important and Fi is my weakest function. Plus, I've known Fe types to have the mentality that everyone should be treated their definition of 'well', that is, how they believe everyone wants to be treated. Often without actual consideration of the individual's quirks and whatever.

I think that's referred to as an internalised F. Don't ask.. I'm still trying to sort that one out myself. All I understand is a little intuitive bit attached directly to the name.

So in fact, I don't think T is about fairness even. If anything is about equality, treating people EQUALLY (weakness: forgetting individual differences of need), then it's Xe. Whilst Xi is about individuality (weakness: not considering place of own actions in wider context).

?

Firstly Ti is about labelling and defining, so we naturally become fair more so than individual and secondly you think that an ENFJ is more likely to treat everyone to a standard than as individuals? Have you seen how many bits of road kill they bring home determined to breathe life into this, often self broken, individual? It's crazy!!

The T and F difference I'd say would be more like this:

T - everyone should be treated (and be expected to behave) reasonably
F - everyone should be treated (and be expected to behave) nicely

Also true.

I think everyone should be treated fairly,
and to treat every person on an individual basis is to play favorites.

If a law is established stating that the speed limit is 30 on a certain road, and I am the only one driving 30 on that road and everyone else is getting away with driving 40, that makes me mad,
especially when some of the people going 40 are rude to me and tailgate me because I am obeying the law.

The perfect example of a T mind coupled with an F sense of "do that once more and I'm removing your camshaft, k?"

i say, we need to take a deeper look

Excellent. Thanks.. much needed clarity there.

...

Dude, it's not supposed to be one or the other. It's only representative of the particular maxim which you first move towards. Very few people actually think that either are achievable and none of them are very clever.

So vague they are both true. I personally want both, and would not be able to choose one if I had to. I know many Ts (ENTPs) who would agree with me.

ENxP "I think I'm both"
Me "Surprise"

As my father would say "that's exactly what I'd expect an ENFP to say"

I too am drawn to both though I readily admit that my first move is towards objectivity and fairness. Individual exceptions are considered as they need for them is found.