You can only seige the fortress with hard logic. That is Ti, your faculties appear to be dearth of this subtance.
Or just pass over the fortress completely and go visit a more hospitable and accessible town. *shrug*
There can be no doubt that we all have intuitions and feelings and they intermingle with our thinking. To be objective means not to eliminate those faculties, but merely seperate your reasoning from them.
Is that possible? Can we truly separate it? How do we determine whether or not we've separated it? How can we possibly stand outside of our own process? How do we speak and think without words -- or at least be able to articulate and be self-aware of what our thoughts are, without words?
I'm sure by now you've understood that what you describe is an ideal, but one that we will never reach. We're all flawed and limited... and I think that was her point.
Ps, especially NPs tend to be very subtle in their communication. They'd expect you to pick up on their cues intuitively, as they apply their intuition to the external world. (NP is a code for Extroverted Intuition).
Then apparently there is a flaw on both sides -- her misperceptions of their intention, and their misperceptions of what everyone else should be capable of.
Communication is a two-way street, you know. Both sides need to ante up. And technically, I'd give a "guest" or a newer member a little more flex, and expect more of those who are already part of the group, if you have to force me to make a flat-out ruling.
Unfortunately, introverted judgers (Ps), tend to have little regard for etiquette. Aspecially ITPs. This is the case because only ethical actions that show integrity of inner character have merit. Otherwise it is mere cant. As for example, Js will often do good without being good. Be polite, without being sincere. As you've implied this is what those INTPs who were rude to you should do. What good would it have been for them to be polite to you if they never meant you well?
Typical Ti obfuscation, like FineLine mentioned earlier. We don't need a philosophical analysis or similar. This is not a philosophical question.
Situation:
Round #1: She was a new member, she didn't know people yet, and they were expecting her to properly interpret their jokes. She tried to ignore it and when it persisted, she got frustrated.
Round #2: She finally complained, and instead of apologizing and having both sides compromise and say, "oops, sorry, didn't mean it, we're all friends now, right?", instead now we're into a debate about who (effectively) should have known better and why the other side wasn't perceptive enough to change their behavior.
This is really a minor blot and can be compensated for by both sides just making their intentions clear, apologizing, and moving on. Don't complicate things unnecessarily.
No it is not. What makes civilization civlilized is collaboration, not ettiquete. In fact, it is collobaration through competition in out businesses and science and technology that seems to seperate us most from "savages".
This may be somewhat tangential to what you were talking about, but Jeff Dahmer belived strongly in etiquette as well.
Morality is not just manners on a larger scale. IMO that equating morality and manner is a bad thing. I believe we should not confuse offence with true harm.
I agree with your overall concept, but in this situation I think you're missing the point. This situation was about etiquette/kindness/communication; people weren't extending that to INTJMom; and, true, she overextended herself in trying to justify why people should have been kinder to her. Still, I'm inclined to give her some slack, and debunking her over-extension only obfuscates the issue, which has little to do about the philosophical difference between etiquette and collaboration.
(I mean, come on -- when I reduced it to that, didn't you hear how SILLY it sounds to take it in that direction? No biggie. Just use that Ti to cut to the essence of the problem at hand, rather than getting esoteric on everyone.)