• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[INFP] INFP, the moral rational?

whimsical

New member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
351
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
4
lol. i totally get that type of rational, even if it doesnt seem that logical
 

Udog

Seriously Delirious
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
5,290
MBTI Type
INfp
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Fi Ne Si/Te:

Example?
Case study: INFP mama

1) Animals - ethics (with the F-twist)

My INFP mama on why not to leave our pet bird out while her friends may gather in the house.

Me: Is it because it annoys the guests? Because, if it's not a formal get-togther, just your friends dropping by, why would you feel the need to move her?

Mama: It's inhumane, because they don't understand her (the bird)....so when they laugh at her tricks/antics, it's not like us (meaning the family), who have learned and now understand her ways.

Me: :huh:

I believe your mom notices the feelings and empathizes with the bird in a way you cannot. A bird's gestures and expressive language isn't as human-like as a cat's, but it's there.

However, based on what you provided, it seems like your mom is saying it bothers HER, not the bird. Your mom cares for the bird and it probably hurts her to see it disrespected by people who she feels are ignorant on this subject.

2) Belly button ring

Me: I wanna get it pierced
Mama: If you want to mutilate the symbolic bond/thread between a mother and a child, go right ahead....

Me: :huh:

Heh. Well she did say 'go ahead'. :D

You could have just said, 'I'm decorating it to emphasize it and bring it out, so other people will appreciate our symbolic bond'! :devil:
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Its difficult to explain without making me sound like a nutter :blush:. Its an intrinsic, instinctive unconscious impression that all things have some sort of emotional quality, admittedly, mostly of the imagined, projected kind. [...] As I've said in other threads, INFPs see meaning in everything

You don't sound like a complete nutter, your reasoning is like deja vu, from what I hear from my mom.


Qre:us, it might be that your mum feels sensitive about what is hers to protect and defend. She may see that bird as a part of what defines her, it is something she loves and cares about and for people to laugh and make comments about it would, by extension, be perceived as a indirect attack on her. She wants to keep the bird out of it so she doesn't have to explain or justify the behaviour of the bird, and therefore, herself.

Seriously, this makes perfect sense. Thanks for putting it in words.

I think morality can be rational, believe me I've taken philosophy and ethics classes. In those classes you hade to provide logical step-by-step argument as to why something is ethical or not.

Yes, as a logical argument has to be rational, but, a rational argument encompasses far more areas, such that a logical premise may be moot.


OMG, I say things like that.
I once said to a pathologist who was being very unco-operative "I guess you'll be explaining to the patient's grieving family why we couldn't issue a particular drug that could have saved thier life."
It was a question of money, you see....The drug costs $500 a gram, and for it to be effective you need about 6grms. It was life and death.
What you rather have; a three thousand dollar debt, or a dead family member?
I know which one I'd have. So I think Qre:us, you have us pegged.

:static: The moral cheerleader, you INFPs. :D

lol. i totally get that type of rational, even if it doesnt seem that logical

Question: what motivates you (or others that may agree with your sentiment) to follow through, even if you recognize the lack of 'logic' in it?

However, based on what you provided, it seems like your mom is saying it bothers HER, not the bird. Your mom cares for the bird and it probably hurts her to see it disrespected by people who she feels are ignorant on this subject.

It bothers her, on behalf of the bird, and yes, herself as well. She's all about the underdog, the vulnerable, no stray left behind, type of deal. In these situations, it's hard to cleanly separate her from her cause, maybe an INFP thing? Dunno.

You could have just said, 'I'm decorating it to emphasize it and bring it out, so other people will appreciate our symbolic bond'! :devil:

Heh! She would have replied that my tastes are tacky, so I'm mocking the bond more than aesthetically celebrating it. It's never-ending...such walks in rule-less rationalization.
 

Udog

Seriously Delirious
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
5,290
MBTI Type
INfp
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It bothers her, on behalf of the bird, and yes, herself as well. She's all about the underdog, the vulnerable, no stray left behind, type of deal. In these situations, it's hard to cleanly separate her from her cause, maybe an INFP thing? Dunno.

I wasn't sure if she thought the bird's feelings were being hurt, or if HER feelings were being hurt. If she thinks the bird's feelings are being hurt, and she can't pinpoint to any action suggesting it (like with a dog you can see it slump and cower when you yell at it, is she noticing a bird equivilant?) then you are witnessing classic Fi projection.

I like Southern's explanation.

(Oh, and I see what you did there. :D )

Heh! She would have replied that my tastes are tacky, so I'm mocking the bond more than aesthetically celebrating it. It's never-ending...such walks in rule-less rationalization.

Just tell her that in the wise words of Krusty the Klown, "I tease mock because I love."
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
Well, it would be interesting if Q could ask her mother what signals the bird uses to communicate with her. I would be interested in that. It's a lovely topic. :wubbie:
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Well, it would be interesting if Q could ask her mother what signals the bird uses to communicate with her. I would be interested in that. It's a lovely topic. :wubbie:

Morse code.






It's pretty evident actually, because she won't stop squawking until you *get it right* (right being whatever she wants to achieve, turn off light in room because she's about to sleep and you forgot, you left her alone in a room, her food bowl is tipped over [she did it], etc, etc). Or, she'll just fly to you and land on your plate (meaning, I want what you're eating...she understands eating very well, and will cause a ruckus if we're in the kitchen, and microwave is beeping and she's not included there). And, there's a difference between the squawking and sweet chirping (which is her first line of communication, to 'ask nicely', with 10 seconds pause, which then turns to squawking...as in, 'obviously, niceness doesn't work with the lot of you so...#*(#@&(@#)@*#)(*#@'!!!!!

Ah, silly birds and sillier humans.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
Me: I wanna get it pierced
Mama: If you want to mutilate the symbolic bond/thread between a mother and a child, go right ahead....

I haven't read any of the other responses, but my first reaction to this is a tongue-in-cheek humour intended to catch you off-guard. At least it would be if I said it ...
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
The problem with subjective morality is that it can more easily conflict with objective morality, or someone else's subjective morality. At least those with objective morality speak a common language: reason.

A few admittedly extreme examples:

Case 1: Stranded on a Desert Island
Subjective morality: We can't eat the only bird on this island! He is stuck here in the same battle for survival as us.

Objective morality: Many people eat birds every day. We will die if we don't eat that bird. It has lost the battle for survival.

Case 2: My Religion is The Truth
Subjective morality: My religion is The Truth. People who do not accept it are evil because they either cannot see the Truth, or reject it. They should die to further the cause of Truth.

Objective morality: Humankind would descend into chaos, and possibly extinction if people were allowed to kill others, therefore, killing someone is immoral.


:hug: We're You're not.
:hug: I am. You're not. :D
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Me: I wanna get it pierced
Mama: If you want to mutilate the symbolic bond/thread between a mother and a child, go right ahead....

Me: :huh:

I haven't read any of the other responses, but my first reaction to this is a tongue-in-cheek humour intended to catch you off-guard. At least it would be if I said it ...

V
I gave tongue-in-cheek funny examples...to kinda stretch the points to obvious 'irrationality'...
(humour is so subjective)


Great minds.....:D

****

Yeah, from her end, she is not oblivious to her 'irrationality' which makes it even the more quixotic and quirky. She knows me, my personality...and matches me with her own brand of F-flavoured Ne. That's the thing...I often can make any irrationality rational on logical terms, I tongue-in-cheek call it the ENTP charm. You guys seem to do the same with morals. Rationalize it, that subjective twist.

Maybe I'm not using the right word: moral - ethics, principles, humanity...

These, you guys, INFPs, are good at coming up with a rationale that's 'morally' bent. And, there's a thread...a connection that *somehow* beyond the nonsense, makes sense.

(Alice in wonderland reference ^)

And, perhaps because it's such introspective topics, subjective meaning a subject/self....unlike objective logic, hence, I see this in you guys more than your extraverted counterparts, ENFPs.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
* can morality be rational? Can [subjective] morality be rational?
People's behaviors, feelings, perceptions, ideals make up a kind of imprecise data. No one can know with 100% certainty what motivates a behavior or what a particular emotional experience is like through someone else's eyes. If enough time is spent gathering this subjective data, it is possible to make approximations. Because it has these fuzzy boundaries, it requires taking in more nuance information overall before patterns evolve. You have to get a baseline for how an individual or society operates and that requires paying attention to a lot of details. Just because a certain type of data is approximate by its nature, this doesn't mean it cannot be processed in a rational manner.

Morality is constructed rationally when it takes in as much of the complete picture as possible. It is the art of observing and understanding the cause and effect relationships in these approximate, experiential systems.

Edit: Let's address the issue of caring about people. Some propose it isn't logical. If it were true that individuals do not rely on others for survival, then I could understand that argument. Of course caring about people is logical if you want to have a support system to survive in the world. Think about when you grow old - the person who was caring and formed a support network is going to survive those years of increasing feebleness with much more strength and grace than the person who has ostracized everyone. This is exactly what I am talking about when I say it requires viewing the big picture played out over time to understand all the cause and effect relationships of behaviors. To come closer to home, you would not presently exist if your mother or guardian didn't care about you. The fact that humans have vulnerable offspring is why we developed the instinct to care. To go against that natural design is both arbitrary and irrational.

I'll look back over the thread in search of someone who has made some kind of argument demonstrating that it is more logical to not care - besides merely stating a supposed correlation. Edit: Maybe we should define morality. My premise is that morality is not defined by social constructs like religion. That is one manifestation of it, but those constructs can become arbitrary and then distort the natural course and in this way become irrational. When I use the word, "morality", it refers to any ideal that supposes having a constructive outcome for the group and so includes the ideals of caring, responsibility, honesty and other such things depending on the context.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
The devil requested an advocate

The problem with subjective morality is that it can more easily conflict with objective morality, or someone else's subjective morality. At least those with objective morality speak a common language: reason.

We are in a room filled with various gizmos and gagetry (and TOYS!). I am standing directly in front of you, both in the center, and you see my world behind me, just as I can only see *your* world behind you.

The firetruck is to your right, but ...to my left. The Biker Barbie, furthest left. No, I mean, your left. But...my right.

We may objectively know to give directions by an absolute. Because absolute assumes 1. (Agreed upon) 1. But, in our everyday dealings, it is very rare we can know which way is our North, South, East, West...

So, if you were to narrarate my world, you would either need to say it as how you see it, or, take that extra effort, to rewire the brain and see from another perspective. Mine.

And, this room....we encounter everyday in life. Where absolutes are moot, not just ours, but are mine, yours, his, hers, its, theirs, perceptions. Depending on where each of us are standing (and interacting..and how) with others in that room. Time. Change. Constant kinetic motion.

And, in here comes, imo, the value of subjective morality. If the room was the actual world, and situations got even more muddy than left & right and up and down...with such things as compassion, love, kinship, altruism, friendships.

I think we can still find a common reason for such subjective need for morality.

A few admittedly extreme examples:

Case 1: Stranded on a Desert Island
Subjective morality: We can't eat the only bird on this island! He is stuck here in the same battle for survival as us.

Objective morality: Many people eat birds every day. We will die if we don't eat that bird. It has lost the battle for survival.

Well, if we want to optimize survival, without any mushy kinship, religion, or otherwise, subjective shyte kicking in....we should battle out each other, victor eats the loser. Heartier meal. Who cares if you only eat birds every day and humans no day. You will die, man, you will die! Eat the brother!

* Caveat ^: now if the 'we' you speak of, was the other a female...that above eating analogy, would take a...ahem...nose-dive...and, may change the argument...

Case 2: My Religion is The Truth
Subjective morality: My religion is The Truth. People who do not accept it are evil because they either cannot see the Truth, or reject it. They should die to further the cause of Truth.

I would try to counter this...but in my head, on repeat: religions are whack. Sorry, no go!

Objective morality: Humankind would descend into chaos, and possibly extinction if people were allowed to kill others, therefore, killing someone is immoral.

The only thing that affords us this: the theory of objective morality...that there is ONE TRUTH to how the world works. Is. Our. Mind. Without which, we wouldn't have this discussion of objective truths. Nor...morals. Either way.

I thought maybe I was just a bad person. :huh:
:hug: We're You're not.
:hug: I am. You're not. :D


Damn straight! (you and/or me)

:2ar15:
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
My INFP mama on why not to leave our pet bird out while her friends may gather in the house.

Me: Is it because it annoys the guests? Because, if it's not a formal get-togther, just your friends dropping by, why would you feel the need to move her?

Mama: It's inhumane, because they don't understand her (the bird)....so when they laugh at her tricks/antics, it's not like us (meaning the family), who have learned and now understand her ways.

Me: :huh:
Having faulty data is not going to produce the most rational outcome. If the assumptions are incorrect then the principle of caring for the bird's feeling may be misapplied. The first step is to determine the needs of the bird. The bird does not experience embarrassment in a human context. That is projection. It is false information. The bird could possible experience some kind of anxiety at having a large number of unfamiliar creatures in the house making noise. The guests could pose a threat or seem predatory if they chase the bird or make noise. If this will upset the bird on the birds terms and in a completely bird-like experience, then it is moral to take into consideration the bird's well-being and keep her away from the guests and remain in peace.

The danger of using projection instead the closest possible approximation to understanding the bird's experience is that the resulting decisions are less likely to have a positive, or desired, outcome if the data is flawed. It take more time, more study of bird behavior, etc. to actually glimpse what it is like for the bird and not merely a projection of self.

Edit: So the next question may be: Why is it rational to care about the bird's feelings at all? Self does not exist in isolation. Whether or not we are conscious of it, we define self through a hierarchical series of identities. This is why we most closely identify with self, and still intimately with family, strongly with friends and community, and often possess loyalties to larger social structures of a religious, political, MBTI category, ethnicity, member of humanity, species on the planet, etc. If positive experiences (avoidance of fear and pain) are to be desired for self, then it makes sense to also desire them for family which is akin to self. My position is that it is irrational to value a positive experience for self and not others. It requires a deeply subjective, ego-centric position to not be able to identify that there is no tangible difference between self and other. The quality of my own life is not of greater value than the quality of your life. We are equal beings. It requires becoming completely lost in the ego to not recognize that. The only objective position is to see equal beings, equal experiences, as literally equivalent and to solve problems accordingly.
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
We are in a room filled with various gizmos and gagetry (and TOYS!). I am standing directly in front of you, both in the center, and you see my world behind me, just as I can only see *your* world behind you. ...blah blah blah blah...
I'm not falling for your distraction tactics. Let's stay focused on the real issue: Give me back my firetruck! Mine!

We may objectively know to give directions by an absolute. Because absolute assumes 1. (Agreed upon) 1. But, in our everyday dealings, it is very rare we can know which way is our North, South, East, West...
Maybe this should be an argument for the necessity of defining an absolute?

And, this room....we encounter everyday in life. Where absolutes are moot, not just ours, but are mine, yours, his, hers, its, theirs, perceptions. Depending on where each of us are standing (and interacting..and how) with others in that room. Time. Change. Constant kinetic motion.
They're not moot, just glossed over! :D

And, in here comes, imo, the value of subjective morality. If the room was the actual world, and situations got even more muddy than left & right and up and down...with such things as compassion, love, kinship, altruism, friendships.

I think we can still find a common reason for such subjective need for morality.
I likely agree with you. I think the objective needs to be defined before there is a basis for the subjective, otherwise nothing has meaning beyond an individual.


Well, if we want to optimize survival, without any mushy kinship, religion, or otherwise, subjective shyte kicking in....we should battle out each other, victor eats the loser. Heartier meal. Who cares if you only eat birds every day and humans no day. You will die, man, you will die! Eat the brother!

* Caveat ^: now if the 'we' you speak of, was the other a female...that above eating analogy, would take a...ahem...nose-dive...and, may change the argument...
:laugh:

I would try to counter this...but in my head, on repeat: religions are whack. Sorry, no go!
I concede this mute point. :D

The only thing that affords us this: the theory of objective morality...that there is ONE TRUTH to how the world works. Is. Our. Mind. Without which, we wouldn't have this discussion of objective truths. Nor...morals. Either way.
Our mind maybe, but not everyone's. I would say the objective truth is logic and reason. My informal research shows that 98% of minds are not operating in the context of this objective truth. :doh: :cry: :ninja:

Damn straight! (you and/or me)

:2ar15:
Wait! If you're the Devil's advocate, then maybe you are a bad person! :thelook:
 
Top