INFJ and morality

[Wyote]

^
On these forums, some of these elements often play out. At times two things happen:
1. The discussion topics become very superficial (even insipid), about topics so subjective that it is virtually impossible for anyone ever to agree/disagree. Eg. What is your dream holiday? What color is your animal spirit? Etc.
2. Two, or more people will try to have a real discussion about a serious question, and dozens of perpetual lurkers will suddenly bombard the thread with derailing, or tut-tutting posts.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but truly, not every topic needs to be a created for the strict purpose of formal discourse. The "insipid" discussions are generally for exploratory purpose, not intended to be debated or refuted. Exploration is an important part of the learning process. Also what constitutes a "serious question" is often debatable in itself, especially on a forum where austerity is difficult to gauge. See; Internet is SRS BSNS

 

[Night Owl]

Unconsciously, I think I have avoided inviting Fe users, so that they don't disrespect the other guests by wanting to shut everyone up, imposing the sentiments like those quoted.

A fair bunch of Fe users probably do impose such sentiments. But interestingly I cannot relate to this snarkiness or tut-tutting that has being talked about as am INFJ response, nor with imposing a peace treaty on guests who are having a simple discussion. After all, besides respecting a civil debate for what it is, I wouldn't want to be disrespectful in such an abrasive way.

If I see a conversation involving disagreement for what it is, I let people go for it, and join in if I feel comfortable and that I'll be listened to and respected mutually, otherwise I sit by and watch as an audience member, seeking to keep the peace only if it actually gets truly heated and divisive (not just presumably divisive). For I do loathe discussions that turn nasty; and on a separate note I dislike debates where neither side actually listens to or addresses the rationale of the other - this happens so often!!! But when there is a logical debate, where both sides listen to one another, and respect each other, and actually engage the premises of the argument, I find it a rare and enjoyable spectacle to listen to and join in.

But you're speaking from experience, so obviously some (or most) INFJ's and Fe users are fascist peace keepers in varying degrees.

As for the forum discussions, I prefer 'deeper things' but lighter topics are valuble too, and [can] communicate deeper and hidden meanings, and allow for human connection. There is also a sharing approach to learning (akin to some forms of European essay writing) and an argumentative method (akin to the majority of Western essay writing). Tea and coffee, both are good, some prefer one over the other.

The good thing with you INTJ's is you don't hide your opinion under the rug! [But lol about the lurkers coming out of nowhere haha, I'm new but I've noticed that a little].

 

[CogentPursuit]

Aren't humans generally morally driven? It's a human thing. You can pretend you are making more intellectually driven decisions, but intellectualism is tied to morality. Not sure what other ways you might be guided. Morality is present, like air. Unless you're an arsenic consuming sociopath.

Most people have various preferences that are not related to morals and play an important role in their decision making processes. In some cases you might call it 'having fun' or maybe 'enjoying life'. Morals are fairly simple to me, but maybe that is because I only have one moral judgement.

Children really seem to take up morals and soak them in. They just don't seem to have gotten to the point of sorting them all out and comparing them in order to reduce the number of conflicting moral judgments nor have they gotten to the point of rationalizing their morals in order to fully validate them and verbalize them with explainations. Their morals are largely ingrained in the trust of authority, their parents and teachers. They are simply known but not fully understood.

 

[bolognamacaroni]

At my place, discussions will go all evening, across many topics, from many different perspectives. Moral issues are often an element of these awesomely stimulating discussions.

Unconsciously, I think I have avoided inviting Fe users, so that they don't disrespect the other guests by wanting to shut everyone up, imposing the sentiments like those quoted.

On these forums, some of these elements often play out. At times two things happen:
1. The discussion topics become very superficial (even insipid), about topics so subjective that it is virtually impossible for anyone ever to agree/disagree. Eg. What is your dream holiday? What color is your animal spirit? Etc.
2. Two, or more people will try to have a real discussion about a serious question, and dozens of perpetual lurkers will suddenly bombard the thread with derailing, or tut-tutting posts.

Forums are kind of a terrible place to have discussion. In theory they work well. They allow me time to compose my thoughts and actually say what I mean, but in reality there's so much miscommunication that happens due to the lack of tone, body language, and other social cues (a struggle everywhere online, not just on this forum).

I think the Internet is useful for information gathering, but using it for discussion is pretty limited to superficial, fast paced social media outlets, or places like forums or discussion boards, where it's easier and more convenient for broader discussion, but still only kinda sorta work due to the language challenges previously mentioned.

I agree that there is an underwhelming amount of objectivity on the INFJf and an overwhelming amount of fluff, but I don't necessarily equate that to Fe users. For one, I honestly believe that most people aren't online seeking quality current event or existential debate/discussion. Most people would rather seek connection by comparing their spirit animal colors (or some other ambiguitious fill in the blank topic here) than real talk. Personally, I think it's infinitely easier to have those conversations offline.

In the right social setting (your place sounds like the spot) I'm happy to go a few rounds and hash out all sides of a political, social, or moral issue. In my mind a family gathering should be harmonious, civil, and a place to catch up. At the end of the day I just want to survive a family gathering without anyone killing something.

Discussing life, the universe, and everything is something I'm happy to do with a small group of friends over some coffee or bourbon. I'm perfectly fine with varying opinions and people being on either side of a debate. In this scenario I actually enjoy sitting back and watching people discuss a topic. If I'm comfortable I'll play devil's advocate, nod my head in agreement/disagreement, and give my two cents here or there.

I think there's one part of your text that's important to point out. I highlighted it above. Generally, Te users have a tendency to get into win-lose conversations. Generally, Fe users tend to take a "agree to disagree" stance. It's not because the conversation makes us uncomfortable and we want it to stop.

In my case it's because I'm stubborn and someone hasn't convinced me to flip [or take] a side. It's not really my agenda to win someone over. I'm just genuinely interested in hearing their point of view. At the end of the day, I can still be friends with someone who takes a morally different stance than I do. Hence the agree to disagree shit.

 

[ashishkk]

Morality in me! It's like the universe conspires me to be obligated towards morals.