Ne - (amoral) - We all act like it's just a bit of fun but Ne is (not to be dramatic) pure evil. Beware if you give your heart or your money to an Ne user - their loyalties are always fickle and the function is wholly unconcerned about present, real-world needs that need addressing (but I love you guys personally.)
If the polls on this forum mean anything (and I'm not sure that they do) are any indication, ENTPs are one of the types least likely to be unfaithful or break someone's heart (can't remember if it was on both of these, or just one). I suspect that if ENTPS want to sleep with a lot of different people, they'll just go out and do it and won't hide behind it. I can't remember about ENFPs.
I think that is more the influence of the judging functions. I was speaking about the function in a vacuum.
Ahhh, the popularity of one's blindspot in this thread
Fe: "Society says it's okay, therefore it's right and true and you can't possibly question anything about it and even if you're right, you're still wrong because everybody else says you're wrong."
Well, what happens when two people with Fi have completely different values? Then what is suppose to happen? Is it just a matter of might makes right?
And why should one person's standard matter more than someone else's personal standard? Because it is yours?
Well, what happens when two people with Fi have completely different values? Then what is suppose to happen? Is it just a matter of might makes right?
And why should one person's standard matter more than someone else's personal standard? Because it is yours?
As for question 2 you place one value above another because no two values are truly equal. If your value is more empirically correct/justifiable/thought out etc. then why not?
How often does the opposing value come out as superior? How does one decide a value is empirically correct if harm to others or fairness is not part of it?
How often does the opposing value come out as superior? How does one decide a value is empirically correct if harm to others or fairness is not part of it?
The extent of harm or the measure of fairness has no bearing on factual validity at all. As for determining which one is superior that comes down to which value or idea can win out in whichever conflict situation it is presented with, whether via rational debate or battle. Whether deserved or not the winner receives the spoils and their values survive. Whether they continue to survive is a different question entirely.
You know what, I was trying really hard to not turn this thread into another Fi vs. Fe discussion, and I kind of did anyway. I'll stop.
You should just give in and fight. I know how much you want to argue Fe's corner. If you were to use Ti against Fi then it would win. Ti aiming at the right place in regards to Fi is like putting a paper aeroplane through a shredder - one move and it get ripped to shreds (even though it doesn't realise that it has been slaughtered.) However you seem to prefer arguing from the point of view of Fe. There's nothing against it but one thing I have learnt is that Fi will find a way to beat Fe again and again. It won't even have to look for very long. One kick and the whole thing pretty much collapses in on itself.
The extent of harm or the measure of fairness has no bearing on factual validity at all.
As for determining which one is superior that comes down to which value or idea can win out in whichever conflict situation it is presented with, whether via rational debate or battle.
Whether deserved or not the winner receives the spoils and their values survive. Whether they continue to survive is a different question entirely.
Very well.
Extent of harm is very much factually verifiable:
"'Does this bother you?"
"No." (Failing that level of clarity, there are always actions and nonverbal indicators.) I also include guilt under harm. Feeling guilty is self-harm, and should therefore be avoided.
Fairness can be deduced. Perhaps it is not a fact, but it exists in the same way a mathematical proof does. Given enough knowledge of the context, fairness is probably something people could agree on. The knowledge is the tricky part.
INFPs, the Social Darwinists of values? Is this functionally different from the supposed Fe tendency for groupthink? If the values that survive are the valid ones, don't these values become the values of the group? It seems like Fi will adopt values of the group after all, because they are "proven".
Will they? What if other Fi users challenge those values? Then it will all have been for naught. Do people truly always act according to the Fi values at the end of the day?
I suspect you misunderstood me here. My argument was "facts are facts no matter how inconvenient or painful they may be." They don't cease to be because they may harm others. I'm well aware that harm can also be empirically verified and measured but that wasn't my argument here.
I don't have a clue how you came to this conclusion.
For the second part: That depends on the influence Fi has on the psyche. It's will cannot be denied but it depends whether its a dictator trying to exert that will or a two year old ankle biter.