booyalab
/
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,511
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
if you ask me to choose between mercy and justice i can't choose.
So the tests are flawed because you're a P?
if you ask me to choose between mercy and justice i can't choose.
this is one of the reasons why tests are flawed (imo). if a feeler finds being fair and bringing justice to those who deserves it to be idealistic and a personal belief then right their they are fair. if you ask me to choose between mercy and justice i can't choose.
Don't defend it. The world wouldnt be the same without it
ya i hate the tests.So the tests are flawed because you're a P?
When we think of fairness", we normally think of someone complaining; or "whining" we call it, about some perceived slight from others. Or some "bleeding heart do-gooder" standing up for the slighted. Such emotiveness we normally associate with Feeling.
Yet, in Gary Hartzler's books on Functions and Facets of Type, "fairness" is actually associated with Thinking!
However, this is from the perspective of the person giving out measures of something to people, not the people doing the receiving. So "fair" is assumed to be something universal, and a Thinker would (in an objective, detached fashion) give to all equally, while an F would take into account other factors such as some starting off disadvantaged (sort of like many of the political debates in the US for the past few decades, involving the poor and social programs).
However, the F position is also trying to be "fair", and only looking at a broader time/circumstance perspective.
So I was wondering where exactly fairness and justice would fall in the T/F polarity.
Is it T when you're the one giving to others, but F when you're the one demanding fairness? Or is it T when you used some objective criteria like "equal shares for everyone"; and F when you try to take into consideration prior advantage/disadvantage or individual circumstances?
And then what attitudes of T and F are involved? "Objective" criteria such as "equal shares" can mean e (external) whether it's T or F. Universal standards are technically "external", but are considered introverted.
So the question is, which of the four judging functions are most closely associated with fairness and justice?
But here's where it gets fuzzy. "Morality/ethics" are associated by Jung with Feeling! The "set of rules" would simply indicate an extraverted function (external standard). "The feelings we have for them" would be more like the internal standard. What the standards are would be T/F. T saying "true/false", and F saying "good/bad".
That too would push "fairness" as T by virtue of being "true/false". But it also seems to often become an issue of good/bad, especially for the person rising up and fighting unfairness/injustice. (to himself or others).
The tertiary and inferior are reflecting the auxiliary and dominant, and so will be behind the preferred functional perspective.
I've actually learned a lot since starting this topic. Back then, I had to sort through the common assumptions that any emotions was connecting with a definite "Feeling" function (and a common stereotypes, such as T's being cold "vulcans" who wouldn't care about stuff like fairness). But for one thing, all of the functional products are "mixed together" in reality and, differentiated or "set apart" by our conscious functional perspective.
Basically, I had since come to define T/F as "impersonal" vs "personal" (or mechanical vs soulish; technical vs humane, true/false vs good/bad).
So the issue of fairness and justice, like everything else, has both elements of T and F and both attitudes.
The "mechanical" or impersonal element of fairness and justice is equal give; equal take. This can ignore individual human factors such as a lesser ability to have something to give, etc. Ti may take to the symmetry of equality (equilibrium), where Te may add in other objective factors such as rank; or be more proactive in changing things to make them more equal. Fi would reference the individual and support self or others based on an internal sense of "fairness", and Fe would reference the environment of people, to determine what's good to self or others.
Getting upset at unfairness or injustice may technically be "feeling", but it is not necessarily a differentiated F function. To think that would be to make the mistake of equating emotions with Feeling. It's a limbic (instinctual) reaction that is then interpreted by a differentiated function. Feeling is the "rational" judgment function that sorts out [limbic] feelings. The preferred function would be connected with which complex takes which perspective. (The complexes are what set the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, inferior, and the rest).
One thing people often overlook is that treating people fairly does not mean treating them all the same.Seek for Justice (have a very high senses of your importance) in various ways is Super-Ego stuff while Fairness is Ego. Fair people are usually one who can control themselves and their Super-Ego to overdo things or do wrong things. The most easy controlled Super-Ego is the one ruled by Ego Te(objectivness) or Fi(empathy).
One thing people often overlook is that treating people fairly does not mean treating them all the same.
To a person with dominant Ji, the determination of right or wrong (such as "prioritizing fairness") will be more integral to their ego, and thus may have more of an emotional investment behind it), where if it's aux. it will more likely be used more to color their perceptions, but still not change the personal or impersonal leanings of their judgment.My question was about the impact of their (function) position, so a person who is has judging in their Auxilary position will be different from a person who is Dominant judging function. So how would this appear towards the outsider viewing the person. I understand that both T and F will be fair, but also they will prioritise fairness accordingly to their preferences.
It will seem inevitable for a Te person to see the Fe person as fake, because of how they prioritise fairness, or as you say, impersonal fairness, versus personal (or perhaps societal) fairness?
To a person with dominant Ji, the determination of right or wrong (such as "prioritizing fairness") will be more integral to their ego, and thus may have more of an emotional investment behind it), where if it's aux. it will more likely be used more to color their perceptions, but still not change the personal or impersonal leanings of their judgment.