[MBTI General] NF Ideals vs. SJ Values

[Cimarron]

This discussion seems to be boiling down to two main points:

1. My 2nd paragraph of the OP. It says that NFs come up with their Ideals on their own, whereas SJ get their Values from somewhere else.

2. NF Ideals are future-oriented, whereas SJ Values are present/past-oriented.

The problem with Point 1 is that most SJs themselves do not agree with it. That's predictable; after all, society usually considers lack of independent thought a flaw. (And yet, they still expect you to follow rules. ) Is it that most SJs don't even realize they're doing it? Or could it often be much more subtle than the kind of "upholding traditions" that we're usually thinking about? Why is there a split between our theory and reality?

Unfortunately, it doesn't help that there are many more NFs than SJs on the board, so it's hard to get a general idea of the SJ interpretation. It's hard to see something through someone else's eyes... (not whining)

For Point 2, how about this? I thought of the timeline showing the lifespan of a belief:

It starts in the future, as a dream, an ideal. When it is sought and striven for enough, it becomes a value, in the present. Once it becomes common enough in the present, it is embedded as a rule, dictating from the past. After enough time, it may outlive its usefulness, and so become extinct. What do you think, an accurate portrayal?

Thanks for your patience and interest in the discussion.

 

[nolla]

Good thread. Interesting stuff...

1. My 2nd paragraph of the OP. It says that NFs come up with their Ideals on their own, whereas SJ get their Values from somewhere else.

This seems true, but the way you say it makes it a bit blur to me. I as an NF am obviously not pondering about what would be the next value to uphold. It must come from outside. I think it comes from the patterns seen through intuition. Social patterns, for example. I see certain behavior leading to certain results, pass it to my F and see if I like it or not. As time goes by, I have many of this kind of observations and I can see a pattern in these patterns.

The problem with Point 1 is that most SJs themselves do not agree with it. That's predictable; after all, society usually considers lack of independent thought a flaw. (And yet, they still expect you to follow rules. ) Is it that most SJs don't even realize they're doing it? Or could it often be much more subtle than the kind of "upholding traditions" that we're usually thinking about? Why is there a split between our theory and reality?

I wouldn't call it lack of independence to obey the rules. By obeying the rules you get to be part of the society. It must be something subtle, yes. If we think about the "patterns to values" I was talking about, the way it would go for SF instead of NF would have to be something like, "I see how people behave, I see it's functional, it becomes accepted value. By time there will be more of these values and they will unite in some ways" What's the difference? It stays more concrete.. and I guess it is not as "fluid" as the N patterns. Because when you have a value derived from a concrete situation, you won't drop it until you get a concrete situation telling you the value has died. Does this sound about right?

 

[Cimarron]

Good thread. Interesting stuff...



This seems true, but the way you say it makes it a bit blur to me. I as an NF am obviously not pondering about what would be the next value to uphold. It must come from outside. I think it comes from the patterns seen through intuition. Social patterns, for example. I see certain behavior leading to certain results, pass it to my F and see if I like it or not. As time goes by, I have many of this kind of observations and I can see a pattern in these patterns.

Most ideas have parts or inspirations taken from the outside world, but for NFs, maybe not in as concrete a way as you described in your 2nd paragraph.

I wouldn't call it lack of independence to obey the rules. By obeying the rules you get to be part of the society. It must be something subtle, yes. If we think about the "patterns to values" I was talking about, the way it would go for SF instead of NF would have to be something like, "I see how people behave, I see it's functional, it becomes accepted value. By time there will be more of these values and they will unite in some ways" What's the difference? It stays more concrete.. and I guess it is not as "fluid" as the N patterns. Because when you have a value derived from a concrete situation, you won't drop it until you get a concrete situation telling you the value has died. Does this sound about right?

I wasn't saying that, I was saying that SJs' "adoption" of other people's values indicates lack of independent thought. That is frowned upon by society. So maybe SJs, often subconsciously, can't admit that they adopt values from others.

The last part of that 2nd paragraph is what I meant when I was talking about SJ Values being dependent on concrete things. But can NF Ideals really lack that dependence, that attachment? The answer probably has to do with your 1st paragraph. If so, could you explain that a little more?

 

[nolla]

I suppose the patterns are not as related to concrete situations even when derived from them. If someone is using intuition a lot, there is always the feeling of vagueness. I expect that's the difference. After an NF has drawn a value from a concrete situation, it becomes abstract and separated from the situation and combined to other values, so it can possibly even work differently in a similar situation. Using S in the similar case would lead to seeing the situation just as it is and not so much like a hazy bunch of connections. So, the values derived would be more precise and dependent on the situation.

 

[Cimarron]

I suppose the patterns are not as related to concrete situations even when derived from them. If someone is using intuition a lot, there is always the feeling of vagueness. I expect that's the difference. After an NF has drawn a value from a concrete situation, it becomes abstract and separated from the situation and combined to other values, so it can possibly even work differently in a similar situation. Using S in the similar case would lead to seeing the situation just as it is and not so much like a hazy bunch of connections. So, the values derived would be more precise and dependent on the situation.

Ah, so this is what another poster meant when they said NF Ideals tend to be more "flexible", or adaptable to different situations, you might say. It's starting to come together now.

 

[colmena]

I used 'pliable', earlier. I should have explained it better. Nolla's done a fine job.

I'll come back to this thread in a minute (or the other one). It's interesting.

 

[Cimarron]

I used 'pliable', earlier. I should have explained it better. Nolla's done a fine job.

I'll come back to this thread in a minute (or the other one). It's interesting.

Thanks. I get the gist of what you're saying, though it may always be a vague subject. Another point is that I (and others) don't necessarily agree with it, as explained in previous posts. We're wondering whether the assumption is incorrect, or our perception of it is flawed. Then again, I haven't given it much thought, either.

 

[Anja]

Here's a thought, Cimarron.

This seeming paradox of accepted social values versus what really is going on may be the result of people tending to slip into the "comfortable" even though it's not actually comfortable!

Victor sometimes mentions "the trance." I'm not exactly sure how he applies that term but how many of us go through our day attending busily to our basic needs and problems that we don't really spend time asking ourselves if we are genuinely being true to our stated values? I think this happens more often than any of us realize and it's probably a cause of some of our irritability.

How many times do you hear people stating commonly accepted tenets of society and perceive that it's not really what they believe, or live, at all. As though we simply mimic what's expected of us nearly unconsciously.

I hear a lot of nonspeak in our society. In a word, we forget to pay attention.

 

[Thunderlight]

When I think of tradition, I think of outdated, useless ideas and ways of doing things, that old, stubborn, people cling to.

I kind of have the same feeling as Bella here.

I was raised catholic + born gay= clash.

I really have not recovered. From this I have developed my own belief system from my personal beliefs and not society's. I think of traditions as old and pointless.

So I agree with the fact that NFs' make their own ideals because I do. It does also seem that SJs' tend to believe what is presented to them. My next door neighbor is an SJ and he says some of my thoughts are weird. The thoughts he thinks are weird are ones that are not commonly accepted or said out loud by most people. hope this helps

 

[quietgirl]

For my ISTJ husband and I the main difference I see is that his values are about material things, time, and money. And mine are more about intangibles like loyalty, honesty, stuff like that.

When it works we manage to cover all the bases. When it doesn't we can really clash about what's important.

Same here in my relationship with my ISFJ (welllll T/F borderline) boyfriend. He sees the action & I see the intent behind the action.

 

[Cimarron]

Anja, that may all be true, and it may make finding the answer to our question that much more difficult. But does it change the way things really are, those people's underlying nature?

 

[iwakar]

Off-topic point: I get the impression that for whatever reason, NFs (myself included) seem somewhat mystified and impressed by the SJ demeanor and take on life... is that fascination reciprocated? They're so damn poker all the time...

 

[Thunderlight]

hmmm maybe seem more like flustered and confused...?
I don't know thats where I'm at right now

 

[BlueScreen]

As an ENFP I find values are something concrete and core, but not rigid. They aren't decided by society or the bible, or anything given to me externally. They exist more from every day of my life from birth till now. They come from seeing how things relate, cause and effect, connections, empathy, consequences, standing in everyone I pass's shoes. These all map into a huge maze of understanding and connections (not rules) that decide what we see when making decisions. In a way the values are constantly evolving; They don't stay constant or rigid as many texts seem to suggest. The thing that does stay rigid is the goal and the thing driving them (the direction evolution takes).

In general NFs values are tied in with what is best for humanity, society and people close to them on a core basis. Best for them medically, emotionally, psychologically, freedom wise, to be themselves. They are people builders rather than world builders. But all NFs function in different ways, especially Js vs Ps. For instance INFJ's functioning is almost alien to me, but I love their work. Not sure they get what ENFP's work is either, but does anyone? ENFPs work? hehe

 

[batumi]

This is a great thread. I think the difference is the means of arrival at the ideal or value.

My new husband and I were in a store a month or so ago. A woman whipped past me and
I turned to watch her from behind as she entered the store. My husband-to-be (at that time) asked me why I had stopped and turned around. I replied that the woman had
passed me and left me with a feeling that she was deep in despair and sorrow and very upset.
My almost-husband then showed me her car and the dents in it and explained that he had noticed the same about her, but all of his conclusion-reaching had been done
from factual observation.
I was truly amazed.

We often find this to be the case. We arrive at the same destination but by different
means of travel.

So maybe you can extrapolate from this. I have an ideal because it feels right or wrong
in my gut, but he holds it as a value because it doesn't work - for society perhaps.

 

[Into It]

So we often hear Ideals associated with NFs, that they hold their beliefs above most other things in life (within reason). And we hear that SJs hold their values above most other things in life (within reason). Then what's the difference, besides semantics?

Is it solely in how they arrive at their ideals/values? That SJs usually derive their beliefs from others' around them, especially since we hear these mentioned with "traditions", and hold & cherish those; whereas NFs usually find beliefs on their own, rather than from outside sources, and hold & cherish those? I don't even think these observations hold true for SJs and NFs as I've outlined them here... But I'm asking, what could it be?

Main question: What's the difference?

You have to look at the functions. Putting N and S aside, F types will either arrive at beliefs through sole contemplation (Fi) or as an eclectic colligation of values derived from external standards (Fe). So, ENFP's and INFP's are the former; INFJ's and ENFJ's the latter.

NF's, as a temperament, only feel at ease if they are walking in line with their values. Also, their values should be presented in an authentic manner and realized by others. These are traits that need not apply to SJ's. SJ's "walk the walk" because they are masters of logistics. This gives the illusion that their behavior is driven by a value system, even though that is not necessarily the case.

In ISFJ's and ESFJ's, Fe is present. (dominant in the ESFJ and secondary in the ISFJ) This means that value systems are ALWAYS congruent with their surroundings, and if their surroundings changed completely, and their value system no longer worked, it would grieve them little because their values would simply adapt to the new external standard. In the case of someone using Fi, he would feel much distress as his values could only be changed based on his own analyses, and so he would have to be CONVINCED that his values were incorrect by his own scrutiny. This would be much more difficult.

An SJ with dominant Fi should not theoretically exist. In practice, I have never seen any evidence to the contrary.

ISTJs and ESTJs are also conforming to an external standard; but this is a standard of objective systems and protocol. This leads to the provinciality that seems to be inherent in people of these types. SFJ's may be viewed as equally single-minded, but they are often in agreement with their environment, so this would be less common. To clarify, I am not claiming that SFJ's prostitute their virtues to be accepted within the standard, but rather that the standard accepted is the set of values they actually accept.

 

[the state i am in]

sj- "character," integrity, consistency, material reliability, honesty, loyalty, social conformity, taking one's proper place, "work ethic" (do the job you have been assigned!) etc
nf- abstract images of thought, symbolic meanings, concepts, ethical predilections, beautiful moments, divinity, etc

sj tends to look more similar across the board bc they are more static, more generational, etc.

nf has a wider range of articulation bc the values can be so specific, unique, differentiated, etc. perfect harmony changes drastically with the context, and one soundtrack doesn't fit all. feelings are the ultimate in subjectivity and individual experience. yet as a result they relate in similar ways to society, its mission, its ilk.