Something to consider - F vs T

[Xander]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

[Haight]

X - Everyone should be treated fairly individually.

[Xander]

X - Everyone should be treated fairly individually.
And you still list your type as INTP?

[Athenian200]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

What about situations in which not treating someone as an individual would be unfair?

[Jack Flak]

F, imo, is more "Everyone should be treated well." Not to say it's 100% accurate.

[Xander]

Just a side note, these aren't my definitions. I found them in the introduction to MBTI that I'm re-reading. If the book is to be believed the definitions are Ms Isabel's.

[Xander]

What about situations in which not treating someone as an individual would be unfair?
Errmmm :thinking: ... you panic?

:smile:

I think that neither is ever intended as a maxim and nor are they supposed to be mutually exclusive. Yet again with T & F the two cross over quite a lot.

[Athenian200]

Errmmm :thinking: ... you panic?

:smile:

I think that neither is ever intended as a maxim and nor are they supposed to be mutually exclusive. Yet again with T & F the two cross over quite a lot.

Ah, I see. I suppose my behavior isn't that unusual, then. I would probably treat acquaintances and strangers fairly. But good friends, as well as enemies, get treated as individuals (to totally different ends, of course).

Of course, there's overlap after this, since I still apply my sense of what's fair to some degree with friends in tense/conflict situations, and sometimes pay attention to an individuals needs even if I don't know them.

That's quite a mess, isn't it?

[Xander]

Ah, I see. I suppose my behavior isn't that unusual, then. I would probably treat acquaintances and strangers fairly. But good friends, as well as enemies, get treated as individuals (to totally different ends, of course).

Of course, there's overlap after this, since I still apply my sense of what's fair to some degree with friends in tense/conflict situations, and sometimes pay attention to an individuals needs even if I don't know them.

That's quite a mess, isn't it?
Odd. I read it more as Ts treat people according to principles where each person is measured against a reasonable and reasoned target or maxim where as Fs treat people against measures that lie either within that person or the culture as a whole.

Perhaps that's F vs T reading it?

[Nocapszy]

Why does anyone even write books about type?

[Xander]

Why does anyone even write books about type?
Cause they find it interesting and hope you do too. Is there ever any other reason?

[Athenian200]

Odd. I read it more as Ts treat people according to principles where each person is measured against a reasonable and reasoned target or maxim where as Fs treat people against measures that lie either within that person or the culture as a whole.

Perhaps that's F vs T reading it?

I'm a little mixed up here. Read what as more what?

Those descriptions weren't even in the original definitions... where did that come from? I mean, I suppose it does make sense to say that Ts and Fs treat people the way you say, but... how is any of this related to what I said?

[Xander]

I'm a little mixed up here. Read what as more what?

Those descriptions weren't even in the original definitions... where did that come from? I mean, I suppose it does make sense to say that Ts and Fs treat people the way you say, but... how is any of this related to what I said?
Sorry I'm being a little obtuse.

Your reaction was firstly about who each applies to, my friends get more effort and hence I engage the T process where as strangers only get what I can most easily afford. Where as I was firstly looking into the principles and only thinking about ther personal angle after you brought it up.

Oh and those descriptions are illustrations of the differences between the preferences as written in "An Introduction to the MBTI" (least I think that's it... details).

[Jack Flak]

Why does anyone even write books about type?
What's the answer to 99 out of 100 questions? Money.

[Xander]

What's the answer to 99 out of 100 questions? Money.
That'd be unusual me thinks. Interest first and money second. Why write about paint peeling if you can write about the love of your life?

I should mention that my father is one of these people and at the rate he's going me and my sister are the only one's who'll be benefiting!

[Nocapszy]

Cause they find it interesting and hope you do too. Is there ever any other reason?

But if it's so simple, how can they make it into a book?
Seems like someone's got to be wrong here...

[Bella]

Would an example be the following: Someone that was seriously emotionaly damaged during childhood commits murder. T wants him to get the death penalty, F wants him to live and be rehabilitated because it's sort of not his fault. ?

[Xander]

But if it's so simple, how can they make it into a book?
Seems like someone's got to be wrong here...
The principles of it are simple, the implications complex. Hence shadows and stuff.

Let's face it, according to some neurons are all we have... 1s and 0s. How can ANYTHING be that complex?
Would an example be the following: Someone that was seriously emotionaly damaged during childhood commits murder. T wants him to get the death penalty, F wants him to live and be rehabilitated because it's sort of not his fault. ?
That sounds about right. I think...

[Bella]

I'll have to go with justice then.

[Xander]

I'll have to go with justice then.
That's the thing though.. which one's that? I think the one you consider most just is indicative of what type you are.

[Bella]

Okay, I'm taking back the death penalty as an option as I'm not sure how I feel about that but my idea of justice would be some form of punishment despite the persons background. The background shouldn't make a difference.

[Kora]

But nobody is motivated by the same things. Every individual is unpredictable, and you can't measure everybody by the same standards, not because it is fair or not, just because it's inexact, and you're not getting whole justice.
Maybe what is justice for me it isn't for another person, but still both 'justices' are... justice.

[prplchknz]

context. Everything in context. Most of the time I think no one is above the law. but there are rare instances where I'll make exceptions. I mean if you know the consequences, and still willing to take the risk, then you need to accept that you might not like the outcome. And everyone else in the world has had to live with a result they wish they didn't so why should anyone by above that?

their's laws I don't agree with.

[Bella]

But where would you draw the line. One murderer was molested and emotionaly abused as a child, one is just kooky, are you going to punish them differently because of different backgrounds. I don't think that's right. My humble opinion.

[prplchknz]

But where would you draw the line. One murderer was molested and emotionaly abused as a child, one is just kooky, are you going to punish them differently because of different backgrounds. I don't think that's right. My humble opinion.

what's the crime?

and backgrounds no I probably wouldn't. it more has to do with mental age then anything else.

[Bella]

murder

[prplchknz]

murder no matter what should be punished. their's no excuse for taking a life of another.

[Kora]

But where would you draw the line. One murderer was molested and emotionaly abused as a child, one is just kooky, are you going to punish them differently because of different backgrounds. I don't think that's right. My humble opinion.

No, no. I'd punish them equally, since they have done the same. I don't believe that tragic pasts may exhime one of their guilt.
But I also think that the causants of the emotional scarring of the first murderer should be punished too. If they didn't create a monster, a person wouldn't have died. It's naïve and childish, but, oh well.

[Bella]

no actually, it doesn't matter waht the crime is.

[Bella]

No, no. I'd punish them equally, since they have done the same. I don't believe that tragic pasts may exhime one of their guilt.
But I also think that the causants of the emotional scarring of the first murderer should be punished too. If they didn't create a monster, a person wouldn't have died. It's naïve and childish, but, oh well.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. It's a vicious cycle.
This reminds me of the movie 'Monster'. Despite the opinion I have here, when I watched that movie I was thinking, but, but...It's not her fault!!

[Kora]

Yes, I understand what you're saying. It's a vicious cycle.
This reminds me of the movie 'Monster'. Despite the opinion I have here, when I watched that movie I was thinking, but, but...It's not her fault!!

I think justice doesn't resume to punishing criminals. Would be more like having a society in which that kind of acts doesn't happen (boy, I sound totally idealistic here).
And yes, I thought the same about Monster. But people need demons. It's easier to think that there's "evil people" than "evil environments in which we're all a little bit guilty".

[Bella]

I think justice doesn't resume to punishing criminals. Would be more like having a society in which that kind of acts doesn't happen (boy, I sound totally idealistic here).
And yes, I thought the same about Monster. But people need demons. It's easier to think that there's "evil people" than "evil environments in which we're all a little bit guilty".

Oh, you mean heaven? ;)

Is idealism typically an INTP thing? Pardon my ignorance.

[ajblaise]

Is idealism typically an INTP thing? Pardon my ignorance.

Cynicism is more of an INTP thing.

[Kora]

Cynism comes after you realize how stupid and futile is your idealism. Which is usually at a young age.

[Bella]

thank you ajblaise.
Kora, I think being wholeheartedly disillusioned with life is the perfect state to be in.

[whatever]

So sort of the difference between studying cultures on an across the board measure or by a culturally relativist viewpoint?

Meaning- are we judging things based on an unchanging ruler or does each culture get a ruler based on the qualities of that culture?

I would almost think that that would be the biggest difference between a TJ type and an FP type, since J and P would seem to play into the absolutist attitude to me as well. P lends the beleif in more gray areas while J likes the black and white.

I can see that an F would be more interested in the personal qualities of a person- the "why?" of the person while a T would look at the "what?"- the more impersonal side of the issue.

That's just my poorly disorganized thoughts though I guess :)

[Nocapszy]

The principles of it are simple, the implications complex. Hence shadows and stuff.

Let's face it, according to some neurons are all we have... 1s and 0s. How can ANYTHING be that complex? Hehehe...

And you think that you've found that simplistic principle?
T and F is as simple as that huh?

Oh wait... it all works except until you recognize that you have, in fact, postulated an implication, rather than a principle.

And the implications are complex, you're correct.

[edcoaching]

I've often heard the fairness thing described as...

T's want everyone to have an equal chance
F's want people to have a chance they deserve.

And...Grisham wrote at least two books to get at the idea of justice

The Chamber, where a murderer is being executed, but he's innocent of the crime he's actually accused of. Where's the justice adn do we want the system working that way...

A View to a Kill, where a black man in the deep south shoots the men who raped his little girl but were acquitted in the pre Civil Rights era. Was it wrong when there was no justice?

I'm not really sugesting we debate these, just that Grisham raises the issues in the stickiest situations imaginable to get us to see how difficult they are...

[Kora]

T's want everyone to have an equal chance
F's want people to have a chance they deserve.
But everybody deserves a equal chance.

Kora, I think being wholeheartedly disillusioned with life is the perfect state to be in.
At least, we're ready for the worst.

["?"]

Just a side note, these aren't my definitions. I found them in the introduction to MBTI that I'm re-reading. If the book is to be believed the definitions are Ms Isabel's.And these are very good definitions that should once and for all dismiss the notion that one has to do with cognition and the other emotions. They're both based on cognitive decision making, but thinkers want everyone to be treated the same under similar conditions whereas feelers believe that the circumstances should always be considered. It also reaffirmed that I am a thinking type.

[Orangey]

And these are very good definitions that should once and for all dismiss the notion that one has to do with cognition and the other emotions. They're both based on cognitive decision making, but thinkers want everyone to be treated the same under similar conditions whereas feelers believe that the circumstances should always be considered. It also reaffirmed that I am a thinking type.

What would that look like in practice?

[Gen]

Would an example be the following: Someone that was seriously emotionaly damaged during childhood commits murder. T wants him to get the death penalty, F wants him to live and be rehabilitated because it's sort of not his fault. ?

OR a T who doesn't believe in the death penalty thinks he should get prison time and an F who does that looks at how horrific the crime was.

Remember that just because you have people "thinking objectively" or "taking feelings/circumstances into consideration" doesn't mean that you'll come out with predictable outcomes. Different values and experiences mean that every aspect is weighted differently for everyone.

[Tallulah]

For murder, I'm not really interested in whether the murderer was abused as a kid. Abused as a kid doesn't equal taking an unrelated person's life. Perhaps if they killed their actual abuser as a way to escape, but growing up to murder your wife or boss, or some random person on the street, and using child abuse as a defense doesn't sit well with me. It baffles me when people want to defend the murderer and forget about the victim.

If we're not talking broad, across the board social-type issues, I generally do see the individual, and I try to look at the situation from his/her perspective, and try to understand why he or she would think or react that way.

I see people as individuals, but when they've done something really heinous, I also see that they had their free will to do that, and I don't have to continue to make excuses for them.

[Xander]

Hehehe...

And you think that you've found that simplistic principle?
T and F is as simple as that huh?

Oh wait... it all works except until you recognize that you have, in fact, postulated an implication, rather than a principle.

And the implications are complex, you're correct.
I'm not stating principles though. The principles are that people should generally conform to certain patterns based upon the observation of individuals. The implications of this are still filtering through. Heck the principle may be proven wrong!

A View to a Kill, where a black man in the deep south shoots the men who raped his little girl but were acquitted in the pre Civil Rights era. Was it wrong when there was no justice?
The Bond movie?

[booyalab]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.


This is how I would sum up the difference between F and T bosses, at least.
So since the second approach relies on personal knowledge of the individual, the ones who whine the most basically get the most attention. Even though the T approach doesn't come from a desire to be "nice", it leads to less resentment. But in matters of intimacy or friendship the F method is probably better.

[Xander]

...the ones who whine the most basically get the most attention.
:rofl1:

Okay that IS T vs F...

Let's get it on!!

[edcoaching]

The Bond movie?

Oops--the Grisham book was A Time to Kill.

I just think his setup in those books is meant to show that these issues aren't as cut and dried as anyone of us would like them to be...

[Delphyne]

I've often heard the fairness thing described as...

T's want everyone to have an equal chance
F's want people to have a chance they deserve.

If I had to pick one I would easily take the second sentence, whereas I would have a hard time deciding if it´s more important to treat people fairly or individually. People are different, they have different personalities, different skills and different preferences. Put in the same situation and given equal chances, one person may cope better with this situation than the other because it suits his preferences. That´s why I think that treating every one as an individual being is important, but it´s also something which I label as „fair“.
What do Thinkers see as treating someone fairly and individually?

A View to a Kill, where a black man in the deep south shoots the men who raped his little girl but were acquitted in the pre Civil Rights era. Was it wrong when there was no justice?

I'm not really sugesting we debate these, just that Grisham raises the issues in the stickiest situations imaginable to get us to see how difficult they are...

If I remember correctly the men weren´t acquitted, they were send to jail. That´s one of many differences between the novel and the movie. I could see you point of view if you were talking about the movie, but the novel was more about planned revenge, lying and undermining the legal system.

[bluemonday]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

These aren't mutually exclusive. Find me an F who feels people should be treated unfairly...Find me a T who thinks people are not individuals....

It might be more accurate to say Ts don't really give as much thought to how individuals are treated as they might, and perhaps Fs give it too much thought.

[bluemonday]

Okay, I'm taking back the death penalty as an option as I'm not sure how I feel about that but my idea of justice would be some form of punishment despite the persons background. The background shouldn't make a difference.

IMO, this is more indicative of the J than the T.

[bluemonday]

But nobody is motivated by the same things. Every individual is unpredictable, and you can't measure everybody by the same standards, not because it is fair or not, just because it's inexact, and you're not getting whole justice.
Maybe what is justice for me it isn't for another person, but still both 'justices' are... justice.

If it is impossible to measure everyone by a common standard, then no justice (of an executive kind) is possible. Punitive justice (which is what we are talking about) involves deciding a standard which the majority of society accept as reasonable, establishing that standard in law, and punishing those who violate it. Individual judgments usually take extenuating circumstances into account. T and F don't operate in a vacuum.

[Xander]

These aren't mutually exclusive. Find me an F who feels people should be treated unfairly...Find me a T who thinks people are not individuals....

It might be more accurate to say Ts don't really give as much thought to how individuals are treated as they might, and perhaps Fs give it too much thought.
Err... that's the point. It's preference. It's not supposed to be exclusive or black and white.

[bluemonday]

Err... that's the point. It's preference. It's not supposed to be exclusive or black and white.

Then it's not very helpful, IMO. There are better definitions.

[Xander]

Then it's not very helpful, IMO. There are better definitions.
Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
~Walt Whitman

True of most people I know. There is no black and white, only shades of colour. Hence your reference points are many and few are so neat as to lie either side of a straight line.

I think that's the confusing thing that most people come up against. The MBTI doesn't make sense of people. Learning about the MBTI and trying to apply it as a learning process, that makes sense of people.

[bluemonday]

Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
~Walt Whitman

True of most people I know. There is no black and white, only shades of colour. Hence your reference points are many and few are so neat as to lie either side of a straight line.

I think that's the confusing thing that most people come up against. The MBTI doesn't make sense of people. Learning about the MBTI and trying to apply it as a learning process, that makes sense of people.

MBTI/type theory is all about dichotomies. It is about classifying people according to preferred function(s). You have to start from a position of believing people *can* be typed in a fairly black and white way for it to be a useful or a meaningful tool. If you balk against neat lines and categories, MBTI isn't going to make much sense to you.

[Kora]

If it is impossible to measure everyone by a common standard, then no justice (of an executive kind) is possible. Punitive justice (which is what we are talking about) involves deciding a standard which the majority of society accept as reasonable, establishing that standard in law, and punishing those who violate it. Individual judgments usually take extenuating circumstances into account. T and F don't operate in a vacuum.

I know justice is a system. I'm not saying that justice shouldn't be measured under a common standart, just that if justice doesn't try to search under the surface, it's not exactly justice.
I mean: Punishing a criminal for his/her crime is justice. Trying to get to the root of criminality and what causes it is whole justice for me. Of course that's almost impossible so I stuck with the punitive system.

[bluemonday]

Punishing a criminal for his/her crime is justice.

No, it's retribution. To non-punitive types like myself, it seems little more than vindictiveness. The only reason I can see for it is to act as a deterrent for those who lack (for whatever reason) internal mechanisms to behave in a way that is socially acceptable. And it isn't very effective at doing that.

[Kora]

No, it's retribution. To non-punitive types like myself, it seems little more than vindictiveness. The only reason I can see for it is to act as a deterrent for those who lack (for whatever reason) internal mechanisms to behave in a way that is socially acceptable. And it isn't very effective at doing that.

Well that's why I say that if you don't search for what's behind a crime you don't do anything more than punishing a criminal.

[wolfy]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

Everyone should be treated as an individual. That's fair.

If I murder someone the circumstances should be taken into account. All murder is not the same. It's not like treating people as individuals means being soft on them. It means taking into account the situation and taking appropriate action.
Treating someone individually is not the same as having bias.

[bluemonday]

Well that's why I say that if you don't search for what's behind a crime you don't do anything more than punishing a criminal.

Not true. There are a lot of other things you can do. Rehabilitation is one. Ignoring it is another.

When you talk about searching for what's behind a crime you descend into a highly subjective area. We will perhaps never have a model which can perfectly compute cause and effect in human behaviour. We have to work with what we have and our decisions must be pragmatic and for the greater good.
This would tend towards a generalist approach, rather than an individualistic one.

But all this is a digression...

[Kora]

Not true. There are a lot of other things you can do. Rehabilitation is one. Ignoring it is another.

When you talk about searching for what's behind a crime you descend into a highly subjective area. We will perhaps never have a model which can perfectly compute cause and effect in human behaviour. We have to work with what we have and our decisions must be pragmatic and for the greater good.
This would tend towards a generalist approach, rather than an individualistic one.

But all this is a digression...

Rehabilition is not less subjective than searching for what's behind a crime. It's done by persons, so it will always be subjective.
Then again, I'm not saying that justice shouldn't be executed that way. Just that if for really solving things, it should be known what's behind all, what causes people to commit crimes and see what can be done with that.
Just punishing doesn't seem to work very much. Criminals are not afraid by punishment, and you can see that in the US where there's death penalty. But of course, trying to clean society is impossible. That's why I know that what I think is futile.

["?"]

What would that look like in practice?Simple if someone is considering some sort of disciplinary action be taken, thinkers are usually going to say this is our policy/practice and it should be considered from the point. Feelers are going to consider the circumstances of why the person did what they did and consider an alternate action based on the individual.

[Kai]

Everyone should be treated as an individual. That's fair.

If I murder someone the circumstances should be taken into account. All murder is not the same. It's not like treating people as individuals means being soft on them. It means taking into account the situation and taking appropriate action.
Treating someone individually is not the same as having bias.

This. How can circumstances not be taken into consideration?

These rules and policy are based on circumstances, otherwise we'd have no such thing as degrees for murder.

[booyalab]

This. How can circumstances not be taken into consideration?

These rules and policy are based on circumstances, otherwise we'd have no such thing as degrees for murder.

No, they're based on precedents.

There are some laws that take circumstances into account, but that doesn't mean that people have to agree with them. For instance, I think the the insanity and post-partum depression defenses are bullshit.

[SaltyWench]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

Everyone should be treated fairly, with respect for their individuality.

[booyalab]

I think everyone should be treated equally unfairly with special consideration paid to their unique individual needs, in order to maximize injustice and pain.

[Jack Flak]

I think everyone should be treated equally unfairly with special consideration paid to their unique individual needs, in order to maximize injustice and pain.
In order to maximize injustice, the amount of pain dispensed should be random.

[booyalab]

It's random, but only to those without my knowledge of individual uniqueness.

[substitute]

F, imo, is more "Everyone should be treated well nicely." Not to say it's 100% accurate.

As usual, I'm late to the party. But I'd make one adjustment to this, as above.

I mean, it's Te that minimizes individuality, not Ti. To me individuality is very important and Fi is my weakest function. Plus, I've known Fe types to have the mentality that everyone should be treated their definition of 'well', that is, how they believe everyone wants to be treated. Often without actual consideration of the individual's quirks and whatever.

So in fact, I don't think T is about fairness even. If anything is about equality, treating people EQUALLY (weakness: forgetting individual differences of need), then it's Xe. Whilst Xi is about individuality (weakness: not considering place of own actions in wider context).

The T and F difference I'd say would be more like this:

T - everyone should be treated (and be expected to behave) reasonably
F - everyone should be treated (and be expected to behave) nicely

[INTJMom]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?
I think everyone should be treated fairly,
and to treat every person on an individual basis is to play favorites.

If a law is established stating that the speed limit is 30 on a certain road, and I am the only one driving 30 on that road and everyone else is getting away with driving 40, that makes me mad,
especially when some of the people going 40 are rude to me and tailgate me because I am obeying the law.

[Grayscale]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

i say, we need to take a deeper look

*gets out screwdriver and crescent wrench*


although lots of people have given more insightful responses, i actually think the OP is going in the right direction (in a certain sense) than those and i will explain why.

the reason the concept of fairness exists is because it creates a baseline for everyone to adhere to, and allows society to function better overall.

the only way to be truly fair is to ignore exceptions, that is true objectivity. there is a fundamental difference between needing to expand the baseline to cover such exceptions in a way that can still apply to everyone and actually making an exception to said baseline.

there will always be people that claim exception, but the reason they shouldn't is because statistically, for every one thing they think they should be exempt of there will be far more things that other people could claim exemption from. although it might be stupid and inefficient, ultimately as long as everyone is held against the same objective, unconditional guideline, it is fair.

now, if i had to correlate this to T/F, I would say that T-type will more readily grasp this importance (i cant help but word it that way, im a T afterall) while an F-type will not, thus they would be more inclined to treat each person individually... which is intrinsically unfair and un-objective.



with that said, it is more considerate of each person's feelings of individuality... most people do not understand the aforementioned, perhaps it is truly fair, then, to consider each unfairly, since being truly objective is actually out of the norm, which would be unfair!

what's more fair, perpetuating unfairness to everyone fairly, or being unfair in the sense that you are one person who judges everyone fairly when most people dont.

errrrr, its friday, i shouldnt have to think this hard :drool:

[bluemonday]

the only way to be truly fair is to ignore exceptions, that is true objectivity.


Too simplistic. Exceptions to laws prove their inadequacy. That is why we have case law to revise/supplement statutes based on reasoned judgments.


...although it might be stupid and inefficient, ultimately as long as everyone is held against the same objective, unconditional guideline, it is fair


How can anything stupid and inefficient be fair. Surely, it is unfair - but equally unfair to everyone.

[substitute]

I still think Fe and Te are more about fairness than Ti and Fi... like I said I reckon if it's about fair and individual then the distinction is between Je and Ji. If it's between T and F then you've got to think about what Te and Ti, and then Fe and Fi have in common.

An ENFJ I know, when taking issue with somebody and suggesting an alternative course of action will always finish the sentence with "Okay? Is that fair?" as a rhetorical question, as in, she knows we will agree that it's fair and on that basis find it impossible to disagree. I think fairness is a big deal for Fe types. Whereas I think Te types are more about justice, which is a slightly different thing.

I think what Fe and Fi both have in common is that they both prefer to have positive emotional atmospheres, whilst Te and Ti have in common that they're less sensitive to emotional atmospheres and prefer to have logical, efficient atmospheres.

As a T, I don't particularly value fairness, personally... it usually entails some sort of compromise, and I'm not good at compromise. As I've said elsewhere, compromise means nobody gets what they want :laugh: I'd rather totally give in and let the other person have their way so that at least SOMEBODY does, than have half a loaf - that is, if I can't get THEM to totally give in lol

[Grayscale]

Too simplistic. Exceptions to laws prove their inadequacy. That is why we have case law to revise/supplement statutes based on reasoned judgments.

already addressed that:

there is a fundamental difference between needing to expand the baseline to cover such exceptions in a way that can still apply to everyone and actually making an exception to said baseline.


How can anything stupid and inefficient be fair. Surely, it is unfair - but equally unfair to everyone.

sure you're not an F? just kidding! (just kidding Fs! dont kill me.)

too many people connotate"fair" with some sort of good outcome, like a kid who doesnt get their way "that's not fair!"

it's not about good or bad, it's about objective equality. this is an important concept, so we start with this... then we expand on our rules to handle the exceptions that come up so that they can address them in a way that still applies to everybody the same. ideally, we'd like to reach a point that we dont have to do anything stupid or inefficient for the sake of equality, that would be the ideal. but most of the time it is going to be maintaining this balance for everyone at the cost of the potential benefits lost by the minority.

[Grayscale]

II think fairness is a big deal for Fe types. Whereas I think Te types are more about justice, which is a slightly different thing.

aha, but is something that makes everyone feel like they got a fair deal still necessarily equal? are we measuring equality in a logical and quantifiable method or by perceived experiences? that would be entirely too complicated!

and anyways, outside discussing this, i can be completely unfair and i dont follow anything if i dont agree with the spirit of the law and i know i can get away with it :devil: that's Machiavellian fairness! so what do i know?

okay, it's 5:00, im clocking my brain out.:ouch:

[Jack Flak]

aha, but is something that makes everyone feel like they got a fair deal still necessarily equal?
I would assume you mention that because we both see through this transparent ploy easily, and don't tend to appreciate it. :whistling:

[substitute]

that's why i drew a distinction between fairness and justice, between fairness and equality.

[bluemonday]

it's not about good or bad, it's about objective equality. this is an important concept, so we start with this...

been thinking about this and this distinction between treating everyone the same/"fairly" and treating everyone as an individual is less about T vs F then E vs I, isn't it?

[mlittrell]

T - Everyone should be treated fairly.
F - Everyone should be treated as an individual.

What say you?

So vague they are both true. I personally want both, and would not be able to choose one if I had to. I know many Ts (ENTPs) who would agree with me.

[Xander]

As usual, I'm late to the party. But I'd make one adjustment to this, as above.

I mean, it's Te that minimizes individuality, not Ti. To me individuality is very important and Fi is my weakest function. Plus, I've known Fe types to have the mentality that everyone should be treated their definition of 'well', that is, how they believe everyone wants to be treated. Often without actual consideration of the individual's quirks and whatever.
I think that's referred to as an internalised F. Don't ask.. I'm still trying to sort that one out myself. All I understand is a little intuitive bit attached directly to the name.
So in fact, I don't think T is about fairness even. If anything is about equality, treating people EQUALLY (weakness: forgetting individual differences of need), then it's Xe. Whilst Xi is about individuality (weakness: not considering place of own actions in wider context).
:huh: ?

Firstly Ti is about labelling and defining, so we naturally become fair more so than individual and secondly you think that an ENFJ is more likely to treat everyone to a standard than as individuals? Have you seen how many bits of road kill they bring home determined to breathe life into this, often self broken, individual? It's crazy!!
The T and F difference I'd say would be more like this:

T - everyone should be treated (and be expected to behave) reasonably
F - everyone should be treated (and be expected to behave) nicely
Also true. :nice:
I think everyone should be treated fairly,
and to treat every person on an individual basis is to play favorites.

If a law is established stating that the speed limit is 30 on a certain road, and I am the only one driving 30 on that road and everyone else is getting away with driving 40, that makes me mad,
especially when some of the people going 40 are rude to me and tailgate me because I am obeying the law.
:rofl1: The perfect example of a T mind coupled with an F sense of "do that once more and I'm removing your camshaft, k?" :D
:hug:
i say, we need to take a deeper look
Excellent. Thanks.. much needed clarity there.
...
Dude, it's not supposed to be one or the other. It's only representative of the particular maxim which you first move towards. Very few people actually think that either are achievable and none of them are very clever.
So vague they are both true. I personally want both, and would not be able to choose one if I had to. I know many Ts (ENTPs) who would agree with me.
ENxP "I think I'm both"
Me "Surprise"

As my father would say "that's exactly what I'd expect an ENFP to say" :D

I too am drawn to both though I readily admit that my first move is towards objectivity and fairness. Individual exceptions are considered as they need for them is found.

[Little Linguist]

Something else to consider:

What if you think the way to treat people nicely *is* to treat them fairly/reasonably?

Eh, I did not know if anyone else said it, but yeah....

[Xander]

Something else to consider:

What if you think the way to treat people nicely *is* to treat them fairly/reasonably?

Eh, I did not know if anyone else said it, but yeah....
It depends upon how far down the road of semantics you're willing to travel, though from that I'd guess T with self knowledge or F with a different perspective on the words... but that's all just musing.