Joyce, the guys you picked for this were a good choice. Paul has these fiery positions and thought about them well and James is what Ti looks like if you were able to destill it in pure form out of a human.. (haha). These guys give a great example of what the types are in very clear (and optimal) representations of their type. I wonder what such a discussion look like with an Fe dom and a Te dom
I have to agree. I have seen many video where Mr. Paul was in the panel and he can explain the Fi function well in a detached way and still be authentic. I also think he has deep convictions on things. Someone told me if having a lukewarm or no stance on anything means you are not a Fi dom.
@@paulbruce5414 Hello sir Paul 😊. Actually, it doesn't help much for me. But it gives me a bit of idea about how it is as a concept. I honestly think the reason i could not relate is because from what I observed, Fi doms cultivate values overtime like a framework. Probably why it shows much more convictions. It can easily determine a value judgment. I think i make value judgments but i don't really have the value frameworks or anything that i allign myself into. Sometimes i think i am loss because i am slow to react and have to think what is appropriate in the moment while everyone already know what they are doing. I can't read situation and people well too.
@@hanjesse31 Sounds potentially INFJ? Sounds more like Fe than Fi, and the detachment says maybe N? I'm just guessing there. When you can, get yourself typed, it can answer a lot of questions.
Empathizing through other's suffering works to harden Fi but empathizing with other's enjoyment can soften the Fi. A lot of Fi doms think that Fi is a pain in the ass, but it doesn't have to be. It's okay to already have an opinion about something, our psyche is made up of more than one function: Fi = "I already have an opinion about this" Ne = "We'll see how it goes" At least, that's how I see it. I wish I had Paul's energy 😂, great talk
omg, this is a classic. wow. classic intp vs infp views on morals. 🙌🙌 also thanks for the infp sharing that passionate heart. That apparently takes courage?? All of the infps i know are hiding in their rooms, perhaps long since given up on the external world. 😢 it seems like they’re all trying to live rightly but i think internally chastising those that live wrongly, according to their own moral-value-system, and lost is some hopeless loop, and expressing that through cryptic poetry and poetic songs.
Thank Joyce. She basically FORCED ME! And my ego was getting a little too high in isolation, I needed an encounter with a Ti-dom to be brought down to a comfortable level of self-esteem.
One's opinions may not change anything , but a group of people with the same opinions can change anything . Which could be good or dangerous depends on the morals of the group of people and what they stand for .
Absolutely! In the United States, racial politics have hit a serious high, starting with the George Floyd case in Minnesota last year. The consensus has been that Derek Chauvin (the police officer) KILLED George Floyd, basically "because racism". And racism by white people, and police officers, let alone white police officers, is a story we've heard for a long time, so when this event occurred, riots and protests started, and slogans like "Justice for Floyd" covered all social media. Yet there have been many Black political commentators - Candace Owens and Officer Tatum have probably been the most outspoken - arguing that this was not a murder, that Chauvin did not kill Floyd, and presenting MUCH evidence for their position against what ultimately became the verdict that was supported and celebrated by so many. This is not to say the evidence leans one way or another, but it's so easy to the dangerous capacity for social contagion. "I feel this, and I'm going to make you all feel it, and that's all that matters!" Every lay person and their mom had an opinion on what happened, but no one had good reasons, or considered the evidence carefully enough to entertain the other side. Like James repeated in various forms in the video (and I tried to echo) is that you can only be confident in your position if you can entertain the alternative position. Yet people are often so afraid of being alone in their beliefs that they refuse to consider the other perspective. Insecurity and need for belonging causes us to adopt whatever beliefs and values are most popular at as given time. And it is that frailty of ego that unfortunately can cause us to stray farther away from Truth.
I had actually brought that up as well, the debate/discussion. This video we did was done to demonstrate the differences in the reasoning strategies of our two types, but it would be neat some day to have Joyce pick some topics and have James and I share our positions and argue a bit.
@@paulbruce5414 Yeah, that would be great since while it is great to hear the experiences of types, it's also great to see how their behaviour or reasoning plays out realtime. And yes I am aware you mentioned it, which inspired me to type this. So Joyce, make it happen! PS: and then you secretly/quickly do a joyce impression in the last minutes...shhh..
LOVED this! All insights were great but I really enjoyed hearing about Ti and also more about the uniqueness of Fi's passion in their stances on things. I loved that Ne analogy too. -INFP
Of all the mbti channels I've seen, Joyce's is the most helpful in understanding the topic. Also really liked James breakdown of philosophical fundamentals at the beginning. Paul's perspective was very interesting. Love the entertainment he brings as well.
Regarding what James said @44:30 ("I can't ignore inconsistency..."), how many other Ti-users, particularly Ti-doms here, feel like they have this flashing red light, loud siren 🚨 or alarm bell 🔔 that goes off in their head when someone contradicts themselves, lies, or says something blatantly wrong that just doesn't make sense? People have said things to me along the lines of "Why do you always have to make such a big deal out of every little mistake I make?" I do try to soften my reaction based on the significance or relevance of the inconsistencies, however, internally, I'm thinking, "You don't hear that alarm going off and see those flashing red lights?! How can you ignore it? It's deafening, impossible to ignore..." Why wouldn't you want to investigate whether your house is burning down if the fire alarm is blaring and you smell smoke? Lol If I can't resolve the contradiction and get to the bottom of the truth, it will keep nagging at me, like a smoke detector constantly chirping. I know not everyone thinks like this, but maybe this will help some other types understand why it's so hard for INTPs to just "drop it."
ENTP here, and same. However, I have become quite adept at either not saying anything or finding a good way to say it, through Fe. Had to learn that the bad way, because almost nobody likes unfiltered Ti in those situations. Which always seemed stupid to me, people would get mad and I would be like, why? wouldn't you want to have the best possible position? But it is true, the moment the brain catches something is off, no matter how much you agree with the topic, it becomes a bit deafening. What is worse is that people assume, that just by virtue of correcting or pointing out that inconsistency, that you are against the person or topic. Which in my life it has gone horribly, because correcting was almost a knee jerk reaction. So for example, imagine someone is talking about slavery, and suddenly I hear faulty logic and point it out.... then the person thinks I am in favor of slavery, and I am like "wth no", of course I am against slavery, in fact I was trying to help you by pointing out where your position needed to improve. I rarely if ever have an opinion or agenda, yet every time people assume I have one whenever I interject, but I interject because of what you described. However, as I said I mostly keep it to myself now, because Fe doesn't like when people get mad.
@@farrex0 That happens to me often too. People either assume I disagree with them by virtue of my questioning their reasoning or playing devil's advocate, or they assume I am attaching a tacit value judgement to whatever observation I dare state. I frequently find myself having to direct people to re-read what I said in order to realize that nowhere in my statement did I say anything about my own opinion or stance on a topic. By and large, it's often the case that I might hold the same position as the person who thinks I'm disagreeing with them; I just came to that position through different reasoning. Personally, I think people can come to the "right" conclusions for the "wrong" reasons (and vice versa). So I just want to make sure that people have all the relevant information and choose the best option based on sound reasoning, in an unbiased fashion, after considering all alternatives thoroughly. I'm not entirely satisfied if someone makes the "right" decision for some stupid reason, like choosing the safest/most effective vaccine based on their personal emotional associations with the company who made it, brand name recognition, or weak anecdotal evidence and personal bias. (This actually happened recently when talking to someone who told me they wanted to get the Pfizer vaccine, but their reasons for choosing that one were uninformed and not logically sound. Basically their reasoning was "I've never heard of Moderna and I know a guy at work who is about the same age & build as me who got the Pfizer..." uhg. After sharing so much information about the pros and cons of each option and encouraging him to consider alternatives, he says I'm not gonna convince him otherwise, that he still wants to get the Pfizer vaccine. I said "I don't actually disagree with your choice. I just want to make sure you're making your decision from a wealth of unbiased information and scientific understanding, rather than anecdotal evidence and your personal associations or familiarity with brand names.") If they are not disavowed of their false beliefs and faulty reasoning, they will then go on to apply that same process to other decisions in the future, and perhaps not be so lucky as to stumble into the right answer by accident. This kind of thing happens all the time in YT comments. People assume I'm disagreeing and I have to clarify "I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just making sure you've thought it through..." or people assume I'm "the enemy" with an opposite stance to theirs just because I correct a mistake. One woman said mRNA comes from aborted baby fetuses. I simply said, "I think you're confusing mRNA with stem cells..." and her response was "Well it doesn't matter because I'm not a scientist," then proceeding to go off on me about "my stance" on vaccines, even though I said nothing about vaccines and made no stance clear on the topic. Literally all I did was correct her false statement about mRNA and suggest she was probably thinking of stem cells (I try to figure out how people made mistakes and be understanding about it), but the correction itself caused her to assume I was against all she stood for. The second phenomenon I mentioned is one that seems to happen most often with Fi-users. All I do is correct a simple mistake. You'd think there wouldn't be much ego attachment to something as trivial as using the wrong word and we could all accept correction and move on with our lives. But with some people, an act as simple as mentioning "I think you meant [this word] instead. [That word] doesn't make sense in the context you used it," will trigger an emotional, defensive reaction. Eventually I realized that Fi users were basically imagining that I had attached a nonexistent value judgement onto the end of my statement. So instead of hearing "Hey, I think you might have used the wrong word," they hear, "You used the wrong word _and therefore you're stupid and therefore you're worthless and therefore I hate you."_ Then they get upset at me for something I _didn't_ say, and defend themselves against accusations I never made. I guess to them, the value judgement is implied/insinuated sereptitiously, because they can't conceive of how or why someone would say that with no value judgement attached. Like, "Why mention it if it's not "bad?" Can't you understand what I mean based on my good intentions stated retroactively, and trust what I say even when I frequently say things I later claim I didn't mean?" 🤯 I agree about the need for Fe. People who know me well (realistically, few and far between) have gradually realized that I mean exactly what I say and nothing else, and thus I can be a bit more "myself" around these people. It takes a long time for most people to realize that if an NTP corrects you, it's *because* they care; not because they don't, or because they don't like you or want to diss you or something. I still think the world would be a much better place if people were actually excited by the opportunity for learning presented by being questioned or corrected.
Wow. INFP dominant here, and curiously enough I have the same feeling of the loud alarm and the flashing red lights, when someone is lying, distorting or hiding something. Yet for me it comes as an internal (almost bodily) feeling, rather than a mental observation. Many times it feels almost like physical pain, in my chest area. And usually I would try to voice out reasons that would make this person correct its actions or behaviour. For me it feels to be more about correcting behaviours rather than words, statements or logics. And I too wondered: how do people not feel this alarm? This pain? And for me, realising a certain distortion or inconsistency in someone’s behaviour - for example - doesn’t necessarily come from actually knowing the inconsistency in reason this person makes. I don’t mentally know what’s wrong in what they say or do. I just feel it in myself. I know there is something wrong there, without being able to explain logically. I might then try to use Ne and Te to find the reasons for what I already "know" through feeling. Also for me, after spending years observing myself, I can say that my system feels people’s unconscious pain. Most of the times people don’t readily realise that the deeper motif for their unjust, inconsistent or distorted behaviour comes from an underlying unconscious fear or pain.
@@heatherbryant4197 “You'd think there wouldn't be much ego attachment to something as trivial as using the wrong word” I smiled, when I know that for me almost each word I speak feels like putting out my internal organs :))))
@@DenisaNastase Well, in my experience, both Ti-doms and Fi-doms seem to be obsessed with the notion of "truth" and value honesty. It's just that the Fi version of "truth" is a bit different from the Ti version of "truth." But both types will hate being lied to. This is part of why I think INTPs & INFPs tend to get along pretty well. Between them is a kind of mutual respect for honesty and individuality, knowing yourself, going against the grain. The parallels between Ti & Fi are quite interesting to me. An Fi-dom might correct me on moral grounds the same way I might correct someone on logical grounds. Both types are going to see the judging framework of other types as lacking depth and nuance. And hence, both types can come across as unnecessarily pedantic in their own respective arenas. Most of the conflict I've had with Fi users getting defensive over being corrected has actually come from TJs. This happens sometimes with NPs, but I think having Fi higher (and perhaps better unconscious Fe) actually helps them read my intentions a little more correctly. Of course, misunderstandings still happen. On the subject of honesty and our reactions to lying, what you described about being able to tell something is off but being unable to articulate it, I once had a theory that people often subconsciously pick up on cues and physical tells that other people exhibit when lying, but that because they are not consciously aware of these cues, can't remember seeing them specifically, or don't quite understand their significance, they end up being left with this ineffable gut instinct that something is wrong. You can't exactly put your finger on it, but something is off, and it's unsettling. Your description of your somatic experience of pain when someone is lying is very interesting to me. To what to do you attribute that reaction? Do you think it's related to Si? Do you consider yourself an empath or HSP? I can't entirely relate to what you describe, at least to that degree. And I don't feel that attachment to words. I can say there have been a few times in my life where I've discovered that someone was lying to me, or lying about me behind my back, where I ended up feeling like I was literally going to puke. Sometimes it also feels like your heart sinking in your chest. Like when people describe their heart dropping on the floor, I think it's not just a colorful metaphor, but perhaps also based on a bodily sensation. Sometimes I feel adrenaline and cortisol start to surge through my veins. I feel anger very infrequently, but a few times in my life I have been so pissed off I was shaking. In these moments, particularly when feeling betrayal or despair, I feel more like how I imagine an INFP might.
Oh, 100%!!!!!! This is total hypocrisy in the way people tend to view other animals. Someone will say they "love animals" or are an "animal person", but they mean those few we domesticated. That view so often taken is centered around oneself, rather than the other. And many attempts to discourage others from discriminating against other animals is based on showing how cute the animals are, or how smart they are. Unfortunately that may be what wins people over, because it fits what they value, but it's not important. An animal deserves to live in freedom, regardless of whether they are cute or ugly, smart or stupid, big or small, but simply because they are alive. Sentient life comes with morally significant status. I appreciate how you easily you can see the attitudes of the masses.
@@paulbruce5414 What I am curious about..if you view all life as life and thus meaningful in some way, then do larger lifeforms have more value than smaller ones or is it equal? If it is equal and there could live more small lifeforms on earth than larger ones, then do small lifeforms have more rights to be here? Also, do you consider plants to be alive? So, then is eating small plants worse than something like eating cows because more plants need to die for x amount of people to live from them compared to how many can eat from 1 cow? Also, is milk the most ethical food, because no animal or plant has to die for that (especially raw milk, so the bacteria in the milk do not die as much)
All the evidence suggests you are very much like my INFP coworker. Thusly, as her INTP counterpart, I can reassure you that all is well and you need not overthink this. This was an excellent and engaging video and I appreciated your thoughts, especially on collectivism.
Love love love the infusions of veganism and vegan thought/philosophy into the discussion, it's a great point for explaining hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, and empathy!!! Thank you, from one vegan INFP to another!!
What I am curious about is if INFP's experience more internal 'fire' than ISFP's, since I find that Si gives people these short and strong,almost physical reactions to things. If Si doms experience something that crosses their Si border, they can suddenly go from calm to fiery untill they perceive they have defend themselves enough against a threat. So I wonder if Si heightens the reactions the INFP experiences with Fi. After all, with the alternative type the ISFP, the other internal function is Ni, which is much less physical and more metaphysical instead.
I've also wondered what the difference is between an ISFP and INFP in the case of how One seems more interested in speaking up (Ne) and the other perfering to take an observers position (Ni). I think conversational exploration is geared towards attracting Ne more than Se. So an INFP, in theory and observation, is more commonly seen commenting on a particular topic of their interest than an ISFP because of their higher stack Ne. Ne loves exploring new ideas and has a difficult time resisting the urge to jump into the world of possibilities. Whereas, physical exploration is geared towards attracting Se more than Ne. The sensational physical world and the present human, mind and body experience, is the primary playground Se loves to play in. Idea generation is less interesting to Se because of its metaphysical properties and future orientation, but Ni will probably pay attention to the conversation and look for new ideas to support or challenge their own ideas. Hence, an ISFP appearing more quiet and disengaged in metaphysical conversations in comparison to an INFP.
I think Si does play a factor in how fiery INFPs may appear. Perhaps, Fi noticed something challenging an Si experience which would then lead Ne (and Se, subconsciously) to investigate what the ruckus is all about to figure out what new information is being presented to challenge the Si experience.
Si Dom can protect their si with the use of Se ... But Si child is incapable of protecting their child Si with the use of Se .... As Se is weakest function in INxP.. But one of the strongest functions in Si-dom
@@jrtrackee So on the flipside, maybe that explains why I rather observe beside the field and analyze the game rather than participating the sport as an Si tert.
I think both Ni and Fi are the hardest to express because they are the exact opposites of things that are the most easy to express/explain (Te and Se) Fe/Ti/Ne/Si are all kind of in the middle of these 2 extremes, as they all have sides hard to explain or express about them (like feelings, intuition and introversion) but also all have sides that are easier (extroverted, sensing-concrete, logic) basically the more Yin a function is, the harder it is to express and the more yan, the easier This is also connected to another yin/yang concept of the yin being the invisible and the yan the visible
As in Ni is personal possibility and they tend to have tunnel vision. Fi is concerned with your own personal values. I think also Se can have a dimension to it that is also pretty selfish as in it tends to view the social landscape as a power heirarchy and be seen as powerful or high up in the heirarchy (basically like a chimpanzee)
I'm a female INFP and my morality is motivated by the empathy I have for children. I think very deeply about what does good look based on the welfare of children. It forms many logical constructions that when presented may look on the surface as an INTP because of how much I have thought them out. When tested I'm almost fairly balanced between the T and F.
man, this is rough... i thought: the fundamental blocks of morality are the fundamental blocks of humanity: love, care, empathy, etc. For there to be someone that actually comes to the conclusion on moral topics specific to care (killing animals, etc.) *by deduction* is insane to me!! wowowow. Whaaaat kind of level of heartlessness...??? surely there’s a deep empathy-filled passion to james though, why else choose moral philosophy? could have chosen any other philosophy. ...maybe that’s just the process / method of work... 🤷♀️
As an infp, I navigate the world with how I feel. If I am at a job where I am constantly anxious, it isn't worth being there. That is different than stress, you have to allow stress to grow. Same with anxiety, but now when it shakes your core on a constant basis. I have also had to learn, it isn't always right. It lands somewhere between a filter and a guide, and that thinking is something that should be interwoven with it. I don't think there is necessarily some absolute morality, just witnessing multiple cultures seems to contradict it. There are certain things that without morals, society could be much harder, like murder. I break it down to the notion of Lee, like leeway. There, on a personal level, should be a core that one can work with. That core can be rock solid, but can't be so arrogant that it is immune to change. Then around that, you build. The building(s) you create help to form more of the moral being. Just like a neighborhood, they change over time. It could have been the years of LSD, but I really can't find any moral grounds that can't be divided generally on a personal vs social ground. I agree with abortion being legal socially, personally if I get a woman pregnant, at worst, I will raise it by myself. Larger than that, I attempt to understand both sides in an argument, feeling and thinking wise. I will walk a mile in the shoes while being the devil's advocate. I will form strong opinions based purely on feeling, but those are also usually very nuanced positions that factually don't fall into easy lines. I might be the odd one out that I am an INFP that leans libertarian, so many of my philosophies base that way. Mainly the philosophy, not the political party. I grew up liberal and I have taken psychedelics an inhuman amount of times, so I have all that built into me too. I have learned that with change, adopting a perennial philosophy tends to be a rather useful way to adopt new philosophies while retaining your own, and being able to really take them in both as a first person experience. It could be change, adding, subtracting, whatever verb you want to use, but being able to be the prickly goo and the gooey prickles at the same time, while accepting them, works to an advantage. I really praise the ability to take action while retaining the open minded nuance. It isn't that all positions, no positions, some, or a majority, are right; it is that they are simply positions, and our reasoning as to how they come to be are rather plastic in the sense of existence as a whole. Somewhere I sit between Alan watts, Noam Chomsky (I love language), Joe Rogan, and Albert Camus.
I find asmr videos relaxing(the legit ones that actually get your brain to prickle) and I’m an infp 😂. I watch particular ones though. What mostly drives me mad and angry is unequal treatment, bullying, and arrogance/rudeness.
i dig the conscious reasoning that paul said, as mentioned while thinking about killing spiders with tissues. consciousness seems like a pretty flaky abstract notion tho. In what level of the animal kingdom tree does it start? If one cannot answer that, then we should default to the safe side and not kill any animals (*any animals*), like Jainists. (super duper ideally) insects have a ton of neurons. Current ai is probably very close to answering this now, if it can be answered at all? That should be enough justification, no? That a thing is conscious, just as we are?
Regarding the "everyone's logic can be different" section. I am an INTP. I don't get my nose bent out of joint if someone believes something different than me, but it does result in me decrementing my estimation of their mental capacity and judgement, unless they have some additional information I had not considered. Under no circumstance should one ever "respect everyone's opinions". Most "opinions" are bad. While it is interesting to hear different takes on things, this sometimes serves to add data to my calculation of "The Truth" of the matter under discussion, but more often it just serves as a data point about how people think or react or whatever, and then, only if I've not encountered it before. It is interesting the argument James presented from his INFP sister for socialism. It is a bad and poorly thought out argument. However, when positing the tension between freedom and equality, it is important to define the meanings and limits of those terms as principles. I think generally, you will have to conclude, in terms of morality, that freedom is limited by the effects one has on others, which is to say you are not free to harm others. I think you will also find that billionaires have necessarily harmed others in the gaining of their wealth, and have also not in any respect earned the bulk of that wealth, and hence have no right to it. That's a complicated discussion that there is not room for in a comments section, but I suggest studying physics and pairing that with philosophy, and you will almost necessarily come to a market socialist conclusion. Also, veganism is necessarily immoral. edit: also I am wondering what James's conclusion on male infant circumcision is.
It's kinda funny just how much I can relate to Paul's Fi 😂 And here I was thinking there's no way I'm a Fi-Dom. I'm really close with an XSTP and while we might "bump heads" from time to time I actually love the intellectual discussions we have. It's good for my Fi, even when they prove me wrong or inconsistent. It's grounding?
Intellectual INFPs are awesome, or at least INFPs willing to explore philosophy, values and morality in an open way, or any topic for that matter. It was a joy to see Paul, and if you are like him in that aspect, I am sure it would be a joy to discuss things with you. Sincerely, an ENTP.
Absolutely! The interaction between Ti and Fi (or F and T in general) is so satisfying ultimately. And while your XSTP friend may be able to concretely and logically prove a point, the NF way isn't to be discounted either, something I learned along the way. For many arguments, we can try to make it ST, but half the time the NF is the powerful side of the coin, influencing others deep in their soul, by going for the heart and appealing to their intuitive sense of morality and experience of life. I'm also happy to hear you can relate to my Fi, and perhaps see your true type. If you are Fi-dominant, but had a hard time relating to the function before, you wouldn't be alone. Fi is so often painted as selfish, petulant, and simple - "I like this", "I don't like this", "You triggered me", and the like. But Fi can be used in a way so much more complex. This is especially the case for Fi-dominants, for the more "dominant" (or the higher in the stack) the function is, the more sophistication its use can be characterized by. If you have any more thoughts about your Fi you want to share, I would love to hear them.
@@farrex0 Thank you so much, that means a lot to hear. It's tricky to be INFP, with such deep convictions, and lack the language to convey them, and thus the opportunity to refine them. I'm very grateful to have had my values challenged over the years, to parse out the personal preferences from the moral obligations. And it's largely thanks to Ti users.
@@paulbruce5414 Hi Paul! I actually don't know my type yet, but I believed to be an INFP back in school/college. I had anger issues motivated by my Fi moral justice values 😂 and it wasn't until I turned 20 that I decided to change my focus and explore other's personal reasons for doing this or that, even if I disagreed with them on something I Fi-valued a lot. I didn't have to agree with them, just dig and dig until I could sympathize or at least logically see their point. I thought that If I could relate to their Fi/Te or their Ti maybe I'd be able to tame that anger. I read some books, forums, and finally it worked, it made me have a more open perspective of life and people, and it made develop a more complex system of Fi values, with a few "Fi principles" to rule them all. Now in my late 20s I'm surrounded with thinkers, and I think that might be why I test all introverted thinking types. I've even considered INTJ and ISTJ 😂
Interestingly I'm somewhat different from the INTP here in that I have strong moral stances. The difference is that I view morals as fundamentally a subjective preference, either you have one on the middle of the bell curve or an outlier preference. E.g. the 1% of people least empathic. When declaring moral stances we do so with the underlying understanding that we simply disregard such outliers since we live in society. I have no need to take psychopaths preference into account either. But it doesn't stop there. Just because it's a difference between preferences doesn't mean it's pure preferences. For instance "how do we deal with immigration in the best way?" can be a a complex interconnection of multiple preferences and also multiple facts. Facts can affect what we prefer, and feel. So rational discussions need to take into account analyzing if we have the full picture of facts relevant to the moral question at hand and appeal to prioritizing another preference or value than the one you are currently prioritizing in light of either new facts or perspectives or being reminded of other values that might be deeper than the previous value on which ones' moral decisions were made.
@@cyberneticbutterfly8506 Morality is the evaluation of whether actions are good or bad. Good or bad is not based on your feelings about things, it is based on their actual, substantial effects. I already answered your absurd question in my first declaration on this thread.
Every time I hear about someone hating ASMR, it sounds so indiscriminate and uninterrogated, like "how the hell could you like music? music drives me up the wall! all these people producing pitched sounds into arranged patterns, it's just so gross." It's never about a specific genre or idiom, like "house music is so obnoxious and predictable, I don't know how you can still enjoy it after hearing the same tricks regurgitated this many times." Like, I like ASMR. But I don't like it indiscriminately as a whole. There's a majority of ASMR youtubers out there that just seem like bandwagon tycoons that don't really get it. They think they can just get a microphone and make any old quiet sounds, go wild buying props, mass produce, and profit. I absolutely abhor moist mouth noises. And I tend to shun spoken ASMR almost entirely. Only some voices pass my gate, we're establishing a taste relationship here. There's something particularly compelling about the ASMR that comes from watching someone engage in a creative act in silence, drawing something with pencil to paper, or building something out of legos or something. The uncertain anticipation and patient embrace of what will be the next move taken sets the mind in the right space for an amplified response, I'm creating the sensations just by describing how it works for me right now. My portable air conditioner isn't hurting things. I caught onto ASMR before it had a name.
Dose anyone else see the connection between the concept of "theory of mind" and Ti - Fe Fe is language Ti connects the agreed upon signifiers into a logical framework And social grace arises from being consciously attentive / skilled at keep track of that "conversation" so to speak. This idea actually is really exciting to me, I think I should run it past Dave and Shanon 😲 any thoughts guys?
And so, by think of it that way, it creates a symetry to the system of mbti where we can explain (i) functions as the logic of a human cognitive experience And (e) as the expression
Ni is being the code in the physics engine, and Se as being the actual experience of playing the video game. And so I think of TI as being the meaning of the words, and if Fe is being the conversation that arises (Fun fact this is Sacha Baron Cohens cousin) And so my idea is that Simon Baron-Cohens, "theory of mind" which is used to test for autism Is really just the discovery that autistic people don't use Fe.. 🤔🤔🤔 Psychology, so close yet so far to understanding the secrets you hold.
This is a very interesting idea to me. I agree there is a correlation between blind, or very low, Fe, and lacking theory of mind. Fe enables us to see from others' perspective, as opposed to the Fi version of empathy where you put yourself in another person's shoes
I guess it would make sense. The theory of mind is basically simple ability to introject objects and assimilate their characteristics. According to Jung all extraverted function basically only introject (assimilate, identify, incorporate etc.). I would guess that Te and Fe are the main contenders since they are rational functions. Fe is truly the best fit since it introjects the emotions (inner dynamics). You can hardly do Fe without language, since it is the best tool to extract inner emotional states. Te is much easier, since you can just catch behavioural patterns by simple observation (but language also helps). The main difference between Te and Fe can be distinguished by entropy. Te want the minimal entropy (maximal order, best fit to solve the issue, optimal process, optimal resource utilization etc.) - Fe wants the maximum entropy (maximal fairness, unity, harmony, levelling, equilibrium). From this stems the issues with interpersonal relationships - Te user hate Ti user, because Ti user do not give Te user room for entropy minimalization (Ti user is stubborn and fixed minded), but Te user love Fi user, since Fi user have motivation and goal, but do not really know how to get there (Te optimize the structure or way towards goal). The same can be said about F - Fe user will hate Fi user, since they do not give Fe user room to move emotions (Fi is stubborn - moral code is fixed, boundaries set), but Fe user love Ti users, since they have this beautiful framework, but it is not used for anything. The best functions for theory of mind would be Fe and Ne since both of these are related to hidden insides of objects (cannot be simply perceived). That would make ESFJ and ENTP the best at manipulating (positively or negatively) others.
I don't believe in paying two people equality if one is lazy and the other person is a hard worker . One person who shows up for work 7 days a week while the other person shows up for work 2 or 3 days out of the week . Paying everyone equally doesn't stick . Not going to work .
@38:00 Society would be a better place with more equal wealth distribution because people would have the freedom to spend their money however they see fit. To level the playing field in this way would at least ensure that everyone have equal capital resources; the decision is then theirs how to use those resources. Does this mean that our "moral" obligation to others (in terms of finances) is then at an end? What about those who would "waste" their money, rather than taking a long-term view about how much to conserve? They would ostensibly run out of capital more quickly than those with a more fiscally conservative outlook. What then is one person's obligation to another, when you see another person struggling because they have "wasted" the resources given to them? Maybe it's a good plot for a fantasy or sci-fi novel. What do we owe each other??? Ultimately, it's a choice one must make for one's self. This is why philosophy stays in business, lol! No one has all the answers, to think one does is the epitomy of hubris. We all like to think we are so clever. We are not.
INTPs and INFPs bond over their auxillary Ne and tertiary Si. INTP James "I don't feel one way or another about this". That's because you are not aware of your own feelings or values since you lack introverted feeling. "We expect to be respected". That is an INTP using Fe inferior. INFPS get very upset when they are passionate about things. That has to do with their values tied into their ISTP superego getting very aggressively angry, ENFJ shadow getting upset feeling bad for the animals being killed saying it's wrong to kill and ESTJ subconscious telling others not to kill.
Hahaha. I’m Ti dom, I suspect. And Paul and Fi and his convictions is so really cute, oh my, I have Fi there. And this showed me how Fi conviction really is. partner it with Ne that quickly branches to many things, I can see the constant decision using Fi. And I’m shocked how Fi have to constantly try to apply their values to the world. As Ti dom as well it’s quite weird to base your emotions from others. Ti where you generate “supposedly” valid reasons that stands the test of time and applies universally. It’s like the Ji is still subjective in a sense until Je-ing it and getting validation from the outside on how objective your Ji decisions are Very interesting! And Paul conviction is inexplicably cute! well probably an explanation for it is i rarely see conviction as strong and hence has a “new effect” to me and hence my Ne being fed as happiness.
I’d love to poke some holes in James money distribution argument as an INFP. First the split all the money and give it to the world argument isn’t what people are asking for but even then in that hypothetical in my opinion money wouldn’t have any value and war would then ensue due to a bunch of issue that we can write books about. But what money distribution actually means in the real world is taking money thats been accumulated by those in the very top and using it to raise the society up all together. People can still accumulate wealth to a reasonable point but once it starts to negatively effect the society then again the cycle happens until technology and innovation get rid of scarcity and we all live in a anarco-communist society where we all love each other and feel no need to have the “freedom” to enslave the other and hoard resources from one another.
No one is saying a doctor and a McDonald’s worker are valued the same so they should get paid the same. It’s the CEOs we have today get an unbelievable disproportionate amount of the wealth while his workers are on food stamps because they get paid the minimum amount the employer can get away with paying and maybe we can do something about it. If we get some of that wealth and funnel it into well planned strategic approaches back into the society maybe that worker and the general public won’t be living day to day food insecure.
Maybe we can educate the society house the society feed the society make the the government work for the people and not their corporate donors and special interest. Slowly get into a universe where we can let go of hierarchical systems all together :D
@@hanjesse31 in my opinion Co-ops and government ran utilities will be the socialist society. Most utility jobs will be done by robots. We shouldn’t be afraid of robots taking our jobs , robots should make life easier while day to day we live in a market socialism society. We in America have to expand our social democracy first to get basic needs met then social democracy leds to co-op taking over the service industry’s (most people’s day to day) and government taking the helm of utilities and manufacturing. That will be socialism. This all in my head will be generations though or maybe we all die due to global warming or a meteor or something. When things get worst hopefully we’re ready for unified action and don’t leave things to “the free market” because if it’s left to the “free market” we’ll for sure have people being greedy while the rest of the world is in chaos. Example Elon musk and Jeff bezos trying to colonize the moon while the earth is suffering through climate change
Thank you Miss @@JoyceMeng22 😊. By the way, the video is very informative in getting into the distinction of the two functions. Both judging function can sometimes looks the same but coming from two different roots. Ti's own data base of logic and Fi's allignment to its core values.
With a scientific approach to Economics, one can can deduce, the only fair economic system is involves the abolition of "tax-driven money demand." This idea is indeed supported by the statistics. Nobody seems to realize that the currency is a monopoly. This monopoly is upheld by tax laws, and abuses it's power just like every other monopoly. This doesn't conclude that their can't be a virtually universally accepted currency. Just that the only thing that can keep a currency issuer in check is fair competition and freedom of choice. Like every market, monopolies are abusive, and competition is anti-monopoly. I'm sorry, but James sister's argument is not logically, or scientifically, sound. Statistics confirm more government involvement in the economy reduces movement among socio-economic classes, slows GDP per capita growth, and increases price instability. Government's support abusive monopolies. Capitalism must be applied to the biggest market, the currency market, to actually be called capitalism. I don't think she knows where the money actually comes from. But she's right, society would be a much better place if it were more equal. The first place to make things equal, is in our freedom to issue, and accept, whichever currency we choose.
Joyce, the guys you picked for this were a good choice. Paul has these fiery positions and thought about them well and James is what Ti looks like if you were able to destill it in pure form out of a human.. (haha). These guys give a great example of what the types are in very clear (and optimal) representations of their type.
I wonder what such a discussion look like with an Fe dom and a Te dom
I have to agree. I have seen many video where Mr. Paul was in the panel and he can explain the Fi function well in a detached way and still be authentic. I also think he has deep convictions on things. Someone told me if having a lukewarm or no stance on anything means you are not a Fi dom.
It depends on the 2 xxxJs
@@hanjesse31 Does that idea of Fi not being lukewarm help you figure out your own type yet?
@@paulbruce5414 Hello sir Paul 😊. Actually, it doesn't help much for me. But it gives me a bit of idea about how it is as a concept. I honestly think the reason i could not relate is because from what I observed, Fi doms cultivate values overtime like a framework. Probably why it shows much more convictions. It can easily determine a value judgment. I think i make value judgments but i don't really have the value frameworks or anything that i allign myself into. Sometimes i think i am loss because i am slow to react and have to think what is appropriate in the moment while everyone already know what they are doing. I can't read situation and people well too.
@@hanjesse31 Sounds potentially INFJ? Sounds more like Fe than Fi, and the detachment says maybe N? I'm just guessing there. When you can, get yourself typed, it can answer a lot of questions.
Fi vs Ti on issues of morality...this should be very interesting. xD
Indeed, only 34 mins till it starts btw
Empathizing through other's suffering works to harden Fi but empathizing with other's enjoyment can soften the Fi. A lot of Fi doms think that Fi is a pain in the ass, but it doesn't have to be. It's okay to already have an opinion about something, our psyche is made up of more than one function:
Fi = "I already have an opinion about this"
Ne = "We'll see how it goes"
At least, that's how I see it.
I wish I had Paul's energy 😂, great talk
You totally get it. I assume you're also an Fi-dom?
@@paulbruce5414 Yep!
omg, this is a classic. wow. classic intp vs infp views on morals. 🙌🙌
also thanks for the infp sharing that passionate heart. That apparently takes courage?? All of the infps i know are hiding in their rooms, perhaps long since given up on the external world. 😢 it seems like they’re all trying to live rightly but i think internally chastising those that live wrongly, according to their own moral-value-system, and lost is some hopeless loop, and expressing that through cryptic poetry and poetic songs.
Thank Joyce. She basically FORCED ME! And my ego was getting a little too high in isolation, I needed an encounter with a Ti-dom to be brought down to a comfortable level of self-esteem.
I’ve never seen James laugh on a video as much as this one :)
Honestly, making James laugh was my sole focus during the whole video.
@@paulbruce5414 you know you can make intp lough if you say something very not funny that make it funny 😄😆
@@paulbruce5414 if you say potato 🥔 eat burger he gone die of laughing 🤣👌
One's opinions may not change anything , but a group of people with the same opinions can change anything . Which could be good or dangerous depends on the morals of the group of people and what they stand for .
Absolutely! In the United States, racial politics have hit a serious high, starting with the George Floyd case in Minnesota last year. The consensus has been that Derek Chauvin (the police officer) KILLED George Floyd, basically "because racism". And racism by white people, and police officers, let alone white police officers, is a story we've heard for a long time, so when this event occurred, riots and protests started, and slogans like "Justice for Floyd" covered all social media.
Yet there have been many Black political commentators - Candace Owens and Officer Tatum have probably been the most outspoken - arguing that this was not a murder, that Chauvin did not kill Floyd, and presenting MUCH evidence for their position against what ultimately became the verdict that was supported and celebrated by so many.
This is not to say the evidence leans one way or another, but it's so easy to the dangerous capacity for social contagion. "I feel this, and I'm going to make you all feel it, and that's all that matters!" Every lay person and their mom had an opinion on what happened, but no one had good reasons, or considered the evidence carefully enough to entertain the other side. Like James repeated in various forms in the video (and I tried to echo) is that you can only be confident in your position if you can entertain the alternative position. Yet people are often so afraid of being alone in their beliefs that they refuse to consider the other perspective.
Insecurity and need for belonging causes us to adopt whatever beliefs and values are most popular at as given time. And it is that frailty of ego that unfortunately can cause us to stray farther away from Truth.
On the fundus distance. There is an argument that removing unnecessary variance in measurement improves accuracy.
*Vote up for next video topics*
- Paul doing a Joyce Impression
- Paul vs James Fi vs Ti debate/discussion
- Joyce Jokes Video
I had actually brought that up as well, the debate/discussion. This video we did was done to demonstrate the differences in the reasoning strategies of our two types, but it would be neat some day to have Joyce pick some topics and have James and I share our positions and argue a bit.
@@paulbruce5414 Yeah, that would be great since while it is great to hear the experiences of types, it's also great to see how their behaviour or reasoning plays out realtime.
And yes I am aware you mentioned it, which inspired me to type this.
So Joyce, make it happen!
PS: and then you secretly/quickly do a joyce impression in the last minutes...shhh..
I challenge James to an Fi/Ti duel!! Hahaha
LOVED this! All insights were great but I really enjoyed hearing about Ti and also more about the uniqueness of Fi's passion in their stances on things. I loved that Ne analogy too. -INFP
Of all the mbti channels I've seen, Joyce's is the most helpful in understanding the topic. Also really liked James breakdown of philosophical fundamentals at the beginning. Paul's perspective was very interesting. Love the entertainment he brings as well.
Great interview!! Came up in my feed again. Haven't heard it since it came out. I think I'll continuously play this.
Great talk
Regarding what James said @44:30 ("I can't ignore inconsistency..."), how many other Ti-users, particularly Ti-doms here, feel like they have this flashing red light, loud siren 🚨 or alarm bell 🔔 that goes off in their head when someone contradicts themselves, lies, or says something blatantly wrong that just doesn't make sense? People have said things to me along the lines of "Why do you always have to make such a big deal out of every little mistake I make?" I do try to soften my reaction based on the significance or relevance of the inconsistencies, however, internally, I'm thinking, "You don't hear that alarm going off and see those flashing red lights?! How can you ignore it? It's deafening, impossible to ignore..." Why wouldn't you want to investigate whether your house is burning down if the fire alarm is blaring and you smell smoke? Lol If I can't resolve the contradiction and get to the bottom of the truth, it will keep nagging at me, like a smoke detector constantly chirping. I know not everyone thinks like this, but maybe this will help some other types understand why it's so hard for INTPs to just "drop it."
ENTP here, and same. However, I have become quite adept at either not saying anything or finding a good way to say it, through Fe. Had to learn that the bad way, because almost nobody likes unfiltered Ti in those situations. Which always seemed stupid to me, people would get mad and I would be like, why? wouldn't you want to have the best possible position?
But it is true, the moment the brain catches something is off, no matter how much you agree with the topic, it becomes a bit deafening.
What is worse is that people assume, that just by virtue of correcting or pointing out that inconsistency, that you are against the person or topic. Which in my life it has gone horribly, because correcting was almost a knee jerk reaction. So for example, imagine someone is talking about slavery, and suddenly I hear faulty logic and point it out.... then the person thinks I am in favor of slavery, and I am like "wth no", of course I am against slavery, in fact I was trying to help you by pointing out where your position needed to improve.
I rarely if ever have an opinion or agenda, yet every time people assume I have one whenever I interject, but I interject because of what you described. However, as I said I mostly keep it to myself now, because Fe doesn't like when people get mad.
@@farrex0 That happens to me often too. People either assume I disagree with them by virtue of my questioning their reasoning or playing devil's advocate, or they assume I am attaching a tacit value judgement to whatever observation I dare state. I frequently find myself having to direct people to re-read what I said in order to realize that nowhere in my statement did I say anything about my own opinion or stance on a topic. By and large, it's often the case that I might hold the same position as the person who thinks I'm disagreeing with them; I just came to that position through different reasoning. Personally, I think people can come to the "right" conclusions for the "wrong" reasons (and vice versa). So I just want to make sure that people have all the relevant information and choose the best option based on sound reasoning, in an unbiased fashion, after considering all alternatives thoroughly. I'm not entirely satisfied if someone makes the "right" decision for some stupid reason, like choosing the safest/most effective vaccine based on their personal emotional associations with the company who made it, brand name recognition, or weak anecdotal evidence and personal bias. (This actually happened recently when talking to someone who told me they wanted to get the Pfizer vaccine, but their reasons for choosing that one were uninformed and not logically sound. Basically their reasoning was "I've never heard of Moderna and I know a guy at work who is about the same age & build as me who got the Pfizer..." uhg. After sharing so much information about the pros and cons of each option and encouraging him to consider alternatives, he says I'm not gonna convince him otherwise, that he still wants to get the Pfizer vaccine. I said "I don't actually disagree with your choice. I just want to make sure you're making your decision from a wealth of unbiased information and scientific understanding, rather than anecdotal evidence and your personal associations or familiarity with brand names.") If they are not disavowed of their false beliefs and faulty reasoning, they will then go on to apply that same process to other decisions in the future, and perhaps not be so lucky as to stumble into the right answer by accident.
This kind of thing happens all the time in YT comments. People assume I'm disagreeing and I have to clarify "I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just making sure you've thought it through..." or people assume I'm "the enemy" with an opposite stance to theirs just because I correct a mistake. One woman said mRNA comes from aborted baby fetuses. I simply said, "I think you're confusing mRNA with stem cells..." and her response was "Well it doesn't matter because I'm not a scientist," then proceeding to go off on me about "my stance" on vaccines, even though I said nothing about vaccines and made no stance clear on the topic. Literally all I did was correct her false statement about mRNA and suggest she was probably thinking of stem cells (I try to figure out how people made mistakes and be understanding about it), but the correction itself caused her to assume I was against all she stood for.
The second phenomenon I mentioned is one that seems to happen most often with Fi-users. All I do is correct a simple mistake. You'd think there wouldn't be much ego attachment to something as trivial as using the wrong word and we could all accept correction and move on with our lives. But with some people, an act as simple as mentioning "I think you meant [this word] instead. [That word] doesn't make sense in the context you used it," will trigger an emotional, defensive reaction. Eventually I realized that Fi users were basically imagining that I had attached a nonexistent value judgement onto the end of my statement. So instead of hearing "Hey, I think you might have used the wrong word," they hear, "You used the wrong word _and therefore you're stupid and therefore you're worthless and therefore I hate you."_ Then they get upset at me for something I _didn't_ say, and defend themselves against accusations I never made. I guess to them, the value judgement is implied/insinuated sereptitiously, because they can't conceive of how or why someone would say that with no value judgement attached. Like, "Why mention it if it's not "bad?" Can't you understand what I mean based on my good intentions stated retroactively, and trust what I say even when I frequently say things I later claim I didn't mean?" 🤯
I agree about the need for Fe. People who know me well (realistically, few and far between) have gradually realized that I mean exactly what I say and nothing else, and thus I can be a bit more "myself" around these people. It takes a long time for most people to realize that if an NTP corrects you, it's *because* they care; not because they don't, or because they don't like you or want to diss you or something. I still think the world would be a much better place if people were actually excited by the opportunity for learning presented by being questioned or corrected.
Wow. INFP dominant here, and curiously enough I have the same feeling of the loud alarm and the flashing red lights, when someone is lying, distorting or hiding something. Yet for me it comes as an internal (almost bodily) feeling, rather than a mental observation. Many times it feels almost like physical pain, in my chest area.
And usually I would try to voice out reasons that would make this person correct its actions or behaviour. For me it feels to be more about correcting behaviours rather than words, statements or logics. And I too wondered: how do people not feel this alarm? This pain?
And for me, realising a certain distortion or inconsistency in someone’s behaviour - for example - doesn’t necessarily come from actually knowing the inconsistency in reason this person makes. I don’t mentally know what’s wrong in what they say or do. I just feel it in myself. I know there is something wrong there, without being able to explain logically. I might then try to use Ne and Te to find the reasons for what I already "know" through feeling.
Also for me, after spending years observing myself, I can say that my system feels people’s unconscious pain. Most of the times people don’t readily realise that the deeper motif for their unjust, inconsistent or distorted behaviour comes from an underlying unconscious fear or pain.
@@heatherbryant4197 “You'd think there wouldn't be much ego attachment to something as trivial as using the wrong word”
I smiled, when I know that for me almost each word I speak feels like putting out my internal organs :))))
@@DenisaNastase Well, in my experience, both Ti-doms and Fi-doms seem to be obsessed with the notion of "truth" and value honesty. It's just that the Fi version of "truth" is a bit different from the Ti version of "truth." But both types will hate being lied to. This is part of why I think INTPs & INFPs tend to get along pretty well. Between them is a kind of mutual respect for honesty and individuality, knowing yourself, going against the grain. The parallels between Ti & Fi are quite interesting to me. An Fi-dom might correct me on moral grounds the same way I might correct someone on logical grounds. Both types are going to see the judging framework of other types as lacking depth and nuance. And hence, both types can come across as unnecessarily pedantic in their own respective arenas.
Most of the conflict I've had with Fi users getting defensive over being corrected has actually come from TJs. This happens sometimes with NPs, but I think having Fi higher (and perhaps better unconscious Fe) actually helps them read my intentions a little more correctly. Of course, misunderstandings still happen.
On the subject of honesty and our reactions to lying, what you described about being able to tell something is off but being unable to articulate it, I once had a theory that people often subconsciously pick up on cues and physical tells that other people exhibit when lying, but that because they are not consciously aware of these cues, can't remember seeing them specifically, or don't quite understand their significance, they end up being left with this ineffable gut instinct that something is wrong. You can't exactly put your finger on it, but something is off, and it's unsettling.
Your description of your somatic experience of pain when someone is lying is very interesting to me. To what to do you attribute that reaction? Do you think it's related to Si? Do you consider yourself an empath or HSP? I can't entirely relate to what you describe, at least to that degree. And I don't feel that attachment to words. I can say there have been a few times in my life where I've discovered that someone was lying to me, or lying about me behind my back, where I ended up feeling like I was literally going to puke. Sometimes it also feels like your heart sinking in your chest. Like when people describe their heart dropping on the floor, I think it's not just a colorful metaphor, but perhaps also based on a bodily sensation. Sometimes I feel adrenaline and cortisol start to surge through my veins. I feel anger very infrequently, but a few times in my life I have been so pissed off I was shaking. In these moments, particularly when feeling betrayal or despair, I feel more like how I imagine an INFP might.
*Popular moral position on animals*
Does it look cute?
Yes = take care of it! It deserves only the best!
no = no one cares, kill it if it annoys you
:)))
Oh, 100%!!!!!! This is total hypocrisy in the way people tend to view other animals. Someone will say they "love animals" or are an "animal person", but they mean those few we domesticated. That view so often taken is centered around oneself, rather than the other. And many attempts to discourage others from discriminating against other animals is based on showing how cute the animals are, or how smart they are. Unfortunately that may be what wins people over, because it fits what they value, but it's not important.
An animal deserves to live in freedom, regardless of whether they are cute or ugly, smart or stupid, big or small, but simply because they are alive. Sentient life comes with morally significant status.
I appreciate how you easily you can see the attitudes of the masses.
@@paulbruce5414 What I am curious about..if you view all life as life and thus meaningful in some way, then do larger lifeforms have more value than smaller ones or is it equal?
If it is equal and there could live more small lifeforms on earth than larger ones, then do small lifeforms have more rights to be here?
Also, do you consider plants to be alive? So, then is eating small plants worse than something like eating cows because more plants need to die for x amount of people to live from them compared to how many can eat from 1 cow?
Also, is milk the most ethical food, because no animal or plant has to die for that (especially raw milk, so the bacteria in the milk do not die as much)
HOLY (uneaten) COW! I talk SO MUCH! Sorry, Joyce!
All the evidence suggests you are very much like my INFP coworker. Thusly, as her INTP counterpart, I can reassure you that all is well and you need not overthink this. This was an excellent and engaging video and I appreciated your thoughts, especially on collectivism.
@@ryokosp21 Coming from MBTI's "The Smart One", I take your kind words as reassurance. Thank you.
@@paulbruce5414 totally agree with Sav. Was great chatting to you Paul. INTP James.
@@jamesoneill7263 Thanks, James. Was really great spending a couple hours diving deep with you. Hope to do it again soon!
Love love love the infusions of veganism and vegan thought/philosophy into the discussion, it's a great point for explaining hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, and empathy!!! Thank you, from one vegan INFP to another!!
Funny how Paul talks about Rawls and Kant the same way I'd blabber about them out of all other philosophers. lol Wholesome stuff, Joyace.
What I am curious about is if INFP's experience more internal 'fire' than ISFP's, since I find that Si gives people these short and strong,almost physical reactions to things. If Si doms experience something that crosses their Si border, they can suddenly go from calm to fiery untill they perceive they have defend themselves enough against a threat.
So I wonder if Si heightens the reactions the INFP experiences with Fi. After all, with the alternative type the ISFP, the other internal function is Ni, which is much less physical and more metaphysical instead.
I've also wondered what the difference is between an ISFP and INFP in the case of how One seems more interested in speaking up (Ne) and the other perfering to take an observers position (Ni).
I think conversational exploration is geared towards attracting Ne more than Se. So an INFP, in theory and observation, is more commonly seen commenting on a particular topic of their interest than an ISFP because of their higher stack Ne. Ne loves exploring new ideas and has a difficult time resisting the urge to jump into the world of possibilities. Whereas, physical exploration is geared towards attracting Se more than Ne. The sensational physical world and the present human, mind and body experience, is the primary playground Se loves to play in. Idea generation is less interesting to Se because of its metaphysical properties and future orientation, but Ni will probably pay attention to the conversation and look for new ideas to support or challenge their own ideas. Hence, an ISFP appearing more quiet and disengaged in metaphysical conversations in comparison to an INFP.
I think Si does play a factor in how fiery INFPs may appear. Perhaps, Fi noticed something challenging an Si experience which would then lead Ne (and Se, subconsciously) to investigate what the ruckus is all about to figure out what new information is being presented to challenge the Si experience.
Si Dom can protect their si with the use of Se ...
But Si child is incapable of protecting their child Si with the use of Se ....
As Se is weakest function in INxP..
But one of the strongest functions in Si-dom
@@jrtrackee So on the flipside, maybe that explains why I rather observe beside the field and analyze the game rather than participating the sport as an Si tert.
The face the intp is making is so relatable lmao
I think both Ni and Fi are the hardest to express because they are the exact opposites of things that are the most easy to express/explain (Te and Se)
Fe/Ti/Ne/Si are all kind of in the middle of these 2 extremes, as they all have sides hard to explain or express about them (like feelings, intuition and introversion) but also all have sides that are easier (extroverted, sensing-concrete, logic)
basically the more Yin a function is, the harder it is to express and the more yan, the easier
This is also connected to another yin/yang concept of the yin being the invisible and the yan the visible
Ni and Fi are like the most selfish i would say.
As in Ni is personal possibility and they tend to have tunnel vision.
Fi is concerned with your own personal values.
I think also Se can have a dimension to it that is also pretty selfish as in it tends to view the social landscape as a power heirarchy and be seen as powerful or high up in the heirarchy (basically like a chimpanzee)
And tries to be seen*
I guess i think my Ti isnt personal but rather something that is noticed or worked out and can exist with out me.
Although ofcourse i can feel proud of having noticed or worked something out.
I'm a female INFP and my morality is motivated by the empathy I have for children. I think very deeply about what does good look based on the welfare of children. It forms many logical constructions that when presented may look on the surface as an INTP because of how much I have thought them out. When tested I'm almost fairly balanced between the T and F.
Sweet! In literally setting my alarm!
man, this is rough...
i thought: the fundamental blocks of morality are the fundamental blocks of humanity: love, care, empathy, etc. For there to be someone that actually comes to the conclusion on moral topics specific to care (killing animals, etc.) *by deduction* is insane to me!! wowowow. Whaaaat kind of level of heartlessness...???
surely there’s a deep empathy-filled passion to james though, why else choose moral philosophy? could have chosen any other philosophy.
...maybe that’s just the process / method of work... 🤷♀️
As an infp, I navigate the world with how I feel. If I am at a job where I am constantly anxious, it isn't worth being there. That is different than stress, you have to allow stress to grow. Same with anxiety, but now when it shakes your core on a constant basis. I have also had to learn, it isn't always right. It lands somewhere between a filter and a guide, and that thinking is something that should be interwoven with it. I don't think there is necessarily some absolute morality, just witnessing multiple cultures seems to contradict it. There are certain things that without morals, society could be much harder, like murder. I break it down to the notion of Lee, like leeway. There, on a personal level, should be a core that one can work with. That core can be rock solid, but can't be so arrogant that it is immune to change. Then around that, you build. The building(s) you create help to form more of the moral being. Just like a neighborhood, they change over time. It could have been the years of LSD, but I really can't find any moral grounds that can't be divided generally on a personal vs social ground. I agree with abortion being legal socially, personally if I get a woman pregnant, at worst, I will raise it by myself. Larger than that, I attempt to understand both sides in an argument, feeling and thinking wise. I will walk a mile in the shoes while being the devil's advocate. I will form strong opinions based purely on feeling, but those are also usually very nuanced positions that factually don't fall into easy lines. I might be the odd one out that I am an INFP that leans libertarian, so many of my philosophies base that way. Mainly the philosophy, not the political party. I grew up liberal and I have taken psychedelics an inhuman amount of times, so I have all that built into me too. I have learned that with change, adopting a perennial philosophy tends to be a rather useful way to adopt new philosophies while retaining your own, and being able to really take them in both as a first person experience. It could be change, adding, subtracting, whatever verb you want to use, but being able to be the prickly goo and the gooey prickles at the same time, while accepting them, works to an advantage. I really praise the ability to take action while retaining the open minded nuance. It isn't that all positions, no positions, some, or a majority, are right; it is that they are simply positions, and our reasoning as to how they come to be are rather plastic in the sense of existence as a whole. Somewhere I sit between Alan watts, Noam Chomsky (I love language), Joe Rogan, and Albert Camus.
This is more relevant than ever
I find asmr videos relaxing(the legit ones that actually get your brain to prickle) and I’m an infp 😂. I watch particular ones though. What mostly drives me mad and angry is unequal treatment, bullying, and arrogance/rudeness.
Joyce putting out content! 😂❤️🙌
Good stuff!!
i dig the conscious reasoning that paul said, as mentioned while thinking about killing spiders with tissues.
consciousness seems like a pretty flaky abstract notion tho. In what level of the animal kingdom tree does it start? If one cannot answer that, then we should default to the safe side and not kill any animals (*any animals*), like Jainists. (super duper ideally)
insects have a ton of neurons. Current ai is probably very close to answering this now, if it can be answered at all? That should be enough justification, no? That a thing is conscious, just as we are?
Paul seems like a 468 too me. Triple reactive intensity.
Can’t wait ❤️
I've never related to anyone in my whole life as much as I related to James in this video ...
Regarding the "everyone's logic can be different" section. I am an INTP. I don't get my nose bent out of joint if someone believes something different than me, but it does result in me decrementing my estimation of their mental capacity and judgement, unless they have some additional information I had not considered. Under no circumstance should one ever "respect everyone's opinions". Most "opinions" are bad.
While it is interesting to hear different takes on things, this sometimes serves to add data to my calculation of "The Truth" of the matter under discussion, but more often it just serves as a data point about how people think or react or whatever, and then, only if I've not encountered it before.
It is interesting the argument James presented from his INFP sister for socialism. It is a bad and poorly thought out argument. However, when positing the tension between freedom and equality, it is important to define the meanings and limits of those terms as principles. I think generally, you will have to conclude, in terms of morality, that freedom is limited by the effects one has on others, which is to say you are not free to harm others. I think you will also find that billionaires have necessarily harmed others in the gaining of their wealth, and have also not in any respect earned the bulk of that wealth, and hence have no right to it. That's a complicated discussion that there is not room for in a comments section, but I suggest studying physics and pairing that with philosophy, and you will almost necessarily come to a market socialist conclusion.
Also, veganism is necessarily immoral.
edit: also I am wondering what James's conclusion on male infant circumcision is.
It's kinda funny just how much I can relate to Paul's Fi 😂 And here I was thinking there's no way I'm a Fi-Dom. I'm really close with an XSTP and while we might "bump heads" from time to time I actually love the intellectual discussions we have. It's good for my Fi, even when they prove me wrong or inconsistent. It's grounding?
Intellectual INFPs are awesome, or at least INFPs willing to explore philosophy, values and morality in an open way, or any topic for that matter. It was a joy to see Paul, and if you are like him in that aspect, I am sure it would be a joy to discuss things with you. Sincerely, an ENTP.
Absolutely! The interaction between Ti and Fi (or F and T in general) is so satisfying ultimately. And while your XSTP friend may be able to concretely and logically prove a point, the NF way isn't to be discounted either, something I learned along the way. For many arguments, we can try to make it ST, but half the time the NF is the powerful side of the coin, influencing others deep in their soul, by going for the heart and appealing to their intuitive sense of morality and experience of life.
I'm also happy to hear you can relate to my Fi, and perhaps see your true type. If you are Fi-dominant, but had a hard time relating to the function before, you wouldn't be alone. Fi is so often painted as selfish, petulant, and simple - "I like this", "I don't like this", "You triggered me", and the like. But Fi can be used in a way so much more complex. This is especially the case for Fi-dominants, for the more "dominant" (or the higher in the stack) the function is, the more sophistication its use can be characterized by.
If you have any more thoughts about your Fi you want to share, I would love to hear them.
@@farrex0 Thank you so much, that means a lot to hear. It's tricky to be INFP, with such deep convictions, and lack the language to convey them, and thus the opportunity to refine them. I'm very grateful to have had my values challenged over the years, to parse out the personal preferences from the moral obligations. And it's largely thanks to Ti users.
@@paulbruce5414 Hi Paul! I actually don't know my type yet, but I believed to be an INFP back in school/college. I had anger issues motivated by my Fi moral justice values 😂 and it wasn't until I turned 20 that I decided to change my focus and explore other's personal reasons for doing this or that, even if I disagreed with them on something I Fi-valued a lot. I didn't have to agree with them, just dig and dig until I could sympathize or at least logically see their point. I thought that If I could relate to their Fi/Te or their Ti maybe I'd be able to tame that anger. I read some books, forums, and finally it worked, it made me have a more open perspective of life and people, and it made develop a more complex system of Fi values, with a few "Fi principles" to rule them all. Now in my late 20s I'm surrounded with thinkers, and I think that might be why I test all introverted thinking types. I've even considered INTJ and ISTJ 😂
Interestingly I'm somewhat different from the INTP here in that I have strong moral stances.
The difference is that I view morals as fundamentally a subjective preference, either you have one on the middle of the bell curve or an outlier preference.
E.g. the 1% of people least empathic.
When declaring moral stances we do so with the underlying understanding that we simply disregard such outliers since we live in society. I have no need to take psychopaths preference into account either.
But it doesn't stop there.
Just because it's a difference between preferences doesn't mean it's pure preferences.
For instance "how do we deal with immigration in the best way?" can be a a complex interconnection of multiple preferences and also multiple facts.
Facts can affect what we prefer, and feel.
So rational discussions need to take into account analyzing if we have the full picture of facts relevant to the moral question at hand and appeal to prioritizing another preference or value than the one you are currently prioritizing in light of either new facts or perspectives or being reminded of other values that might be deeper than the previous value on which ones' moral decisions were made.
Morality must be based in objective reality or it doesn't mean anything.
@@Pengalen The facts that inform your morality must be but morality is fundamentally emotional.
Emotions are subjective.
@@cyberneticbutterfly8506 Everything you just said is not only incorrect, but also wrong.
@@Pengalen Let me rephrase and ask you then then. You say that morality must be based in objective reality. *Why* must it be so?
@@cyberneticbutterfly8506 Morality is the evaluation of whether actions are good or bad. Good or bad is not based on your feelings about things, it is based on their actual, substantial effects. I already answered your absurd question in my first declaration on this thread.
Aye! Put me on the show! I'm an INTP
Every time I hear about someone hating ASMR, it sounds so indiscriminate and uninterrogated, like "how the hell could you like music? music drives me up the wall! all these people producing pitched sounds into arranged patterns, it's just so gross." It's never about a specific genre or idiom, like "house music is so obnoxious and predictable, I don't know how you can still enjoy it after hearing the same tricks regurgitated this many times." Like, I like ASMR. But I don't like it indiscriminately as a whole. There's a majority of ASMR youtubers out there that just seem like bandwagon tycoons that don't really get it. They think they can just get a microphone and make any old quiet sounds, go wild buying props, mass produce, and profit. I absolutely abhor moist mouth noises. And I tend to shun spoken ASMR almost entirely. Only some voices pass my gate, we're establishing a taste relationship here. There's something particularly compelling about the ASMR that comes from watching someone engage in a creative act in silence, drawing something with pencil to paper, or building something out of legos or something. The uncertain anticipation and patient embrace of what will be the next move taken sets the mind in the right space for an amplified response, I'm creating the sensations just by describing how it works for me right now. My portable air conditioner isn't hurting things. I caught onto ASMR before it had a name.
Dose anyone else see the connection between the concept of "theory of mind" and Ti - Fe
Fe is language
Ti connects the agreed upon signifiers into a logical framework
And social grace arises from being consciously attentive / skilled at keep track of that "conversation" so to speak.
This idea actually is really exciting to me, I think I should run it past Dave and Shanon 😲 any thoughts guys?
And so, by think of it that way, it creates a symetry to the system of mbti where we can explain (i) functions as the logic of a human cognitive experience
And (e) as the expression
Ni is being the code in the physics engine, and Se as being the actual experience of playing the video game.
And so I think of TI as being the meaning of the words, and if Fe is being the conversation that arises
(Fun fact this is Sacha Baron Cohens cousin)
And so my idea is that Simon Baron-Cohens, "theory of mind" which is used to test for autism
Is really just the discovery that autistic people don't use Fe..
🤔🤔🤔 Psychology, so close yet so far to understanding the secrets you hold.
This is a very interesting idea to me. I agree there is a correlation between blind, or very low, Fe, and lacking theory of mind. Fe enables us to see from others' perspective, as opposed to the Fi version of empathy where you put yourself in another person's shoes
I guess it would make sense. The theory of mind is basically simple ability to introject objects and assimilate their characteristics. According to Jung all extraverted function basically only introject (assimilate, identify, incorporate etc.). I would guess that Te and Fe are the main contenders since they are rational functions. Fe is truly the best fit since it introjects the emotions (inner dynamics). You can hardly do Fe without language, since it is the best tool to extract inner emotional states. Te is much easier, since you can just catch behavioural patterns by simple observation (but language also helps). The main difference between Te and Fe can be distinguished by entropy. Te want the minimal entropy (maximal order, best fit to solve the issue, optimal process, optimal resource utilization etc.) - Fe wants the maximum entropy (maximal fairness, unity, harmony, levelling, equilibrium). From this stems the issues with interpersonal relationships - Te user hate Ti user, because Ti user do not give Te user room for entropy minimalization (Ti user is stubborn and fixed minded), but Te user love Fi user, since Fi user have motivation and goal, but do not really know how to get there (Te optimize the structure or way towards goal). The same can be said about F - Fe user will hate Fi user, since they do not give Fe user room to move emotions (Fi is stubborn - moral code is fixed, boundaries set), but Fe user love Ti users, since they have this beautiful framework, but it is not used for anything.
The best functions for theory of mind would be Fe and Ne since both of these are related to hidden insides of objects (cannot be simply perceived). That would make ESFJ and ENTP the best at manipulating (positively or negatively) others.
I don't believe in paying two people equality if one is lazy and the other person is a hard worker . One person who shows up for work 7 days a week while the other person shows up for work 2 or 3 days out of the week . Paying everyone equally doesn't stick . Not going to work .
30:51 okay that hurts
@38:00 Society would be a better place with more equal wealth distribution because people would have the freedom to spend their money however they see fit. To level the playing field in this way would at least ensure that everyone have equal capital resources; the decision is then theirs how to use those resources. Does this mean that our "moral" obligation to others (in terms of finances) is then at an end? What about those who would "waste" their money, rather than taking a long-term view about how much to conserve? They would ostensibly run out of capital more quickly than those with a more fiscally conservative outlook. What then is one person's obligation to another, when you see another person struggling because they have "wasted" the resources given to them? Maybe it's a good plot for a fantasy or sci-fi novel. What do we owe each other??? Ultimately, it's a choice one must make for one's self. This is why philosophy stays in business, lol! No one has all the answers, to think one does is the epitomy of hubris. We all like to think we are so clever. We are not.
INTPs and INFPs bond over their auxillary Ne and tertiary Si. INTP James "I don't feel one way or another about this". That's because you are not aware of your own feelings or values since you lack introverted feeling. "We expect to be respected". That is an INTP using Fe inferior. INFPS get very upset when they are passionate about things. That has to do with their values tied into their ISTP superego getting very aggressively angry, ENFJ shadow getting upset feeling bad for the animals being killed saying it's wrong to kill and ESTJ subconscious telling others not to kill.
Hahaha. I’m Ti dom, I suspect. And Paul and Fi and his convictions is so really cute, oh my, I have Fi there.
And this showed me how Fi conviction really is. partner it with Ne that quickly branches to many things, I can see the constant decision using Fi. And I’m shocked how Fi have to constantly try to apply their values to the world. As Ti dom as well it’s quite weird to base your emotions from others. Ti where you generate “supposedly” valid reasons that stands the test of time and applies universally. It’s like the Ji is still subjective in a sense until Je-ing it and getting validation from the outside on how objective your Ji decisions are
Very interesting! And Paul conviction is inexplicably cute! well probably an explanation for it is i rarely see conviction as strong and hence has a “new effect” to me and hence my Ne being fed as happiness.
I’d love to poke some holes in James money distribution argument as an INFP. First the split all the money and give it to the world argument isn’t what people are asking for but even then in that hypothetical in my opinion money wouldn’t have any value and war would then ensue due to a bunch of issue that we can write books about. But what money distribution actually means in the real world is taking money thats been accumulated by those in the very top and using it to raise the society up all together. People can still accumulate wealth to a reasonable point but once it starts to negatively effect the society then again the cycle happens until technology and innovation get rid of scarcity and we all live in a anarco-communist society where we all love each other and feel no need to have the “freedom” to enslave the other and hoard resources from one another.
It’ll be a true freedom. A freedom of accessibility to technology, basic human needs, knowledge, and eventually freedom of scarcity.
No one is saying a doctor and a McDonald’s worker are valued the same so they should get paid the same. It’s the CEOs we have today get an unbelievable disproportionate amount of the wealth while his workers are on food stamps because they get paid the minimum amount the employer can get away with paying and maybe we can do something about it. If we get some of that wealth and funnel it into well planned strategic approaches back into the society maybe that worker and the general public won’t be living day to day food insecure.
Maybe we can educate the society house the society feed the society make the the government work for the people and not their corporate donors and special interest. Slowly get into a universe where we can let go of hierarchical systems all together :D
@@oinkzer5252 what about capitalism?
@@hanjesse31 in my opinion Co-ops and government ran utilities will be the socialist society. Most utility jobs will be done by robots. We shouldn’t be afraid of robots taking our jobs , robots should make life easier while day to day we live in a market socialism society. We in America have to expand our social democracy first to get basic needs met then social democracy leds to co-op taking over the service industry’s (most people’s day to day) and government taking the helm of utilities and manufacturing. That will be socialism. This all in my head will be generations though or maybe we all die due to global warming or a meteor or something. When things get worst hopefully we’re ready for unified action and don’t leave things to “the free market” because if it’s left to the “free market” we’ll for sure have people being greedy while the rest of the world is in chaos. Example Elon musk and Jeff bezos trying to colonize the moon while the earth is suffering through climate change
@2:37 James is a doctor right? Did i remember it right? And is sir paul a vegan?
Yes!
Thank you Miss @@JoyceMeng22 😊. By the way, the video is very informative in getting into the distinction of the two functions. Both judging function can sometimes looks the same but coming from two different roots. Ti's own data base of logic and Fi's allignment to its core values.
I am a vegan. Been the loser at family dinners since September 2012.
@@paulbruce5414 🤣
ASMR is fun but i cant turn my volume up enough to hear what they are saying so i dont watch it.
❤️
Paul makes me want to be a vegan again.
With a scientific approach to Economics, one can can deduce, the only fair economic system is involves the abolition of "tax-driven money demand." This idea is indeed supported by the statistics. Nobody seems to realize that the currency is a monopoly. This monopoly is upheld by tax laws, and abuses it's power just like every other monopoly. This doesn't conclude that their can't be a virtually universally accepted currency. Just that the only thing that can keep a currency issuer in check is fair competition and freedom of choice. Like every market, monopolies are abusive, and competition is anti-monopoly. I'm sorry, but James sister's argument is not logically, or scientifically, sound. Statistics confirm more government involvement in the economy reduces movement among socio-economic classes, slows GDP per capita growth, and increases price instability. Government's support abusive monopolies. Capitalism must be applied to the biggest market, the currency market, to actually be called capitalism. I don't think she knows where the money actually comes from. But she's right, society would be a much better place if it were more equal. The first place to make things equal, is in our freedom to issue, and accept, whichever currency we choose.
God I hate Fi I’m sorry
Ironic that you're using Fi to make that judgment.