# Are FJ types more moral than others? And which types are the least moral?



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Van Meter said:


> How about we stop talking about the evil of the Nazi gang and talk more about the psychopaths in power now? If you live in the U.S, plenty of its leaders deserve to be hang drawn and quartered for what they've directly done, or endorsed. We are the only country that has used nukes, AND we used them on entire cities. Human rights my ass. The next time another U.S politician plays the human rights/terrorism/tyranny card, I will puke my guts out, because we are up there with the worst of the worst in terms of overall suffering inflicted. Plenty of it has been done indirectly, via economics. We've pretty much destroyed Mexico with NAFTA, which Mexico's politicians are also guilty for playing along.
> 
> Tl;dr Political off topic bullshit report post



What you seem to be missing is that psychopaths fundamentally by their very nature crave power, as do some types of narcissists. So of course they will be in positions of power, which is why easily 25% of CEOs of major corporations are most likely functioning sociopaths. Their genes stay in the gene pool because they grab power. Humanity functioned for centuries with a great deal more murder and selfishness than we are currently witnessing. It used to be downright admirable to rape and pillage, and you had a good husband if he owned a lot of slaves in some cultures. There's nothing, absolutely nothing, spectacular about what the United States has done when compared to other historic world empires. You also need to understand that Mexican culture is fundamentally extremely classist and racist, so yes, make sure you blame their own leaders for betraying their people.

The United States, like it or not, has helped a lot of people too. The United States has not ruled by fear necessarily but by charm. You aren't going to solve the problems of humanity by hanging and dismembering our leaders. The people with the most global power right now aren't presidents, they're businesses.


----------



## Van Meter (Sep 28, 2012)

kdm1984 said:


> Off-topic rant...with cursing...yeah, that was very INFJ-like. Sorry, couldn't resist.  I thought I was that type for years until people repeatedly showed me behavior consistently contrary to the type, so...


Swearing is certainly associated with a certain type. Fo-Sho. You got me there. Those naughty and fake Infjs, turning folks into Intps all the time, annoying to say the least. 

Its hard for my to believe you're Intp, my opinion.


----------



## Van Meter (Sep 28, 2012)

fourtines said:


> What you seem to be missing is that psychopaths fundamentally by their very nature crave power, as do some types of narcissists. So of course they will be in positions of power, which is why easily 25% of CEOs of major corporations are most likely functioning sociopaths. Their genes stay in the gene pool because they grab power. Humanity functioned for centuries with a great deal more murder and selfishness than we are currently witnessing. It used to be downright admirable to rape and pillage, and you had a good husband if he owned a lot of slaves in some cultures. There's nothing, absolutely nothing, spectacular about what the United States has done when compared to other historic world empires. You also need to understand that Mexican culture is fundamentally extremely classist and racist, so yes, make sure you blame their own leaders for betraying their people.
> 
> The United States, like it or not, has helped a lot of people too. The United States has not ruled by fear necessarily but by charm. You aren't going to solve the problems of humanity by hanging and dismembering our leaders. The people with the most global power right now aren't presidents, they're businesses.


Desire for power is in us all to some extent. Put a person off the street into power and he'd be no different, unless he had significant reason not to be. (Politics isn't necessarily bad if done with good intention and action, usually rare)I don't totally agree with the father like son thing, unless the father has influence over the son. You have to take into account other factors that undoubtedly shape a person.

I don't believe there's anything new under the sun. The past was no more violent, lying, and stupid than now. In case you're right, if the past was way bloodier and essentially bad, now we have higher populations, therefore a higher potential for suffering in terms of numbers, AND the technology to pull it off(And the growing lack of resources which will soon cause A LOT of hardship). We aren't getting better Imo. If a village got pillaged, now entire countries get destroyed.

"You aren't going to solve the problems of humanity by hanging and dismembering our leaders"

I mean't that by any reasonable standard they should be. Any normal person would retaliate against a criminal in whatever necessary fashion, right? These leaders don't represent the populace, which was supposed to be an aspect of our country that was to be a great exception to history. Democracy doesn't work, apparently. Failed experiment F-. Better luck next time, what could have been but never was.

Don't care about Mexico, all I know is that its soon to be apart of this country due to NAFTA.

"The people with the most global power right now aren't presidents, they're businesses." You're 100% correct, and the congress and president represent them more than the general populace. Why shouldn't they be hanged, in an objective sense? They've essentially broken the law, just like Timothy McVeigh. Maybe if anti-trust laws were actually enforced in a reasonable manner.


----------



## kdm1984 (Jul 8, 2009)

Van Meter said:


> Swearing is certainly associated with a certain type. Fo-Sho. You got me there. Those naughty and fake Infjs, turning folks into Intps all the time, annoying to say the least.
> 
> Its hard for my to believe you're Intp, my opinion.


Someone insisting I'm another type - not news to me. I've also had folks insist I'm ENTJ, INTJ, ENFP, ESTJ, INFJ, and ENTP as well, using arguments such as "but you use Te all the time" (ENTJ/INTJ) or "you're too emotional to be a Thinker" (ENFP) or "you focus too much on sports and observations to be an N" (ESTJ) yada yada yada.

That's the problem with a system that, in its current state, cannot be falsified. You can pick and choose any behavior you like to support or not support a type. What do you expect?

And people wonder why I look for more objective indicators (brain patterns, motor skills, etc.) as well to indicate type.


----------



## The Hatter (Apr 7, 2014)

"especially ENTP and ESFP, the two types they believe are most common in America (as well as ESTP, a type they believe to be somewhat less common, yet just as immoral)"

Actually, ISTJ is most common type in US, and ENTPs are rarer than ESTPs. ESTPs and ENTPs are the MBTI types that are considered more rare. Ironically, their conceptions are wrong, and I believe that the whole "ISTJ are rare and ENTPs are common" thinking affects the way their perceived the whole immoral/moral issue. 















By stating that most of US are comprised of ESFP/ESTP//ENTP, that's implying that they think most Americans are immoral. Yet, the ISTJ is the most common type in US and ENTP/ESTP are considered more rare. Therefore, isn't that also saying that ISTJs are " lascivious, manipulative, selfish, opportunistic, loud, flaunting, Hollywood, excessive, over-the-top, liberal, extravagant behavior."? 

This is absurdly ironic, though admittedly entertaining.


----------



## kdm1984 (Jul 8, 2009)

They don't believe ISTJ is the most common type. Already had this discussion with another poster earlier. MBTI stats do not necessarily prove some kind of overarching reality, much as we'd like to think. Thus their conclusions are not based on MBTI stats, but based on what they believe to be the proper observations.


----------



## The Hatter (Apr 7, 2014)

kdm1984 said:


> They don't believe ISTJ is the most common type. Already had this discussion with another poster earlier. MBTI stats do not necessarily prove some kind of overarching reality, much as we'd like to think. Thus their conclusions are not based on MBTI stats, but based on what they believe to be the proper observations.


Even so, isn't labeling people that they don't know as mostly a specific type bound to be inaccurate? There is no guarantee that they are right, and they don't exactly know the whole of America and how every single individual truly behaves. It can be an ISTJ putting on an ESTP front; their judgements are more likely to be wrong than right.


----------



## kdm1984 (Jul 8, 2009)

There is no guarantee any of us are right, but those people - for all the disagreements I sometimes have with them - do have a pretty consistent methodology they apply, at least. Before leaping to conclusions, as many do here, it may help to at least try to learn about how that methodology works.

But it doesn't fit people's preconceptions here, so they won't.


----------



## kdm1984 (Jul 8, 2009)

Anyway, this thread has become more about type than FJ morality as of late, so I decided to start a new one that might shed more light on the whole "how do you get an accurate type" debate.


----------



## Grad0507 (Dec 12, 2013)

In response to the OPs question in the subject line, I would say that FJs tend to be more holier than thou. And when they do things they are more motivated by the cause itself. Hitler was an INFJ. Most people would not consider him to be moral, but he did have a cause and he stuck with it. That doesn't mean they are more moral or less moral, it just means that they like to get behind a cause.


----------



## kdm1984 (Jul 8, 2009)

Thanks for an on-topic reply. Nonetheless, I'm still surprised that everyone takes the popular notion of Hitler=_NFJ as fact. Hitler was stern, seldom smiled, and showed lots of other behavior far more consistent with ENTJ than any _NFJ type. If he's been mistyped, then using him as an example of FJ is inaccurate.

Back to the type debate, I suppose. This one won't go anywhere if we keep using people as examples who may not even be of the given type(s).


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@kdm1984



> *morality*
> məˈralɪti/
> noun
> principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.



Since right and wrong is relative I'd say the answer would be yes or no, depending on what perspective we are talking about. From a consensus perspective, Fe would be moral yes...however a different group of people may consider it amoral from their consensus Fe perspective, from my individual perspective it depends on the circumstances & what I consider moral behavior.

Morality outside of consciousness does not exist & it depends on the observer(s) idea(s) about what constitutes moral behavior.

Since Fe & Fi are concerned with values, the former external, the latter internal, they are more likely to be considered connected to ethics/morality, however you can just as easily establish a moral code based on Ti or Te: the law.

I believe this to be objective fact. If you think otherwise plz provide a counter argument.

*Type has nothing to do with how moral or amoral a person is.*


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

I have strong morals. My morals aren't in completely in alignment with any religions. But they are in alignment with the morals I was raised with. 

FJ's seem to have cute way being absolutely convinced that they are the authorities of right and wrong and anyone who doesn't agree is immoral. It's just another topic to get them hot under the collar about.


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

monemi said:


> I have strong morals. My morals aren't in completely in alignment with any religions. But they are in alignment with the morals I was raised with.
> 
> FJ's seem to have cute way being absolutely convinced that they are the authorities of right and wrong and anyone who doesn't agree is immoral. It's just another topic to get them hot under the collar about.


Where have you been?

Your mother and I have been worried sick.


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

What kind of ethics? No I do not care if Selena Gomez wears blue or green socks. Or what some see to be morality and what matters. I care about bigger issues. And I think of myself more logical and ethical than of othersBc why should one behave unethically when it is not illogical to be ethical? Looking into the life of people important in history will show that also Ts can be pretty idealistic. ^^


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

-Alpha- said:


> Where have you been?
> 
> Your mother and I have been worried sick.


I went flying! No really, took the kids home to England for a few weeks. Had a medical emergency while I was gone. Got shitty diagnosis but super awesome drugs! ENERGY! Didn't know I was experiencing fatigue until I got this stuff. So what do I do with new found energy? Enjoyed my summer. 

How have things been on here?


----------



## mysteryoftheimagination (Aug 27, 2014)

Fj are very moral... It's crazy. They don't even wanna have threesums... Like... Who does that? Lol


----------



## Van Meter (Sep 28, 2012)

Moral. That can be slippery to define at times, but it is possible, and it gets easier the further you go down the ladder of necessity. Food/Water/Shelter are a tangible firm basis for a moral code, indisputable unless you advocate everyone starving or killing each other. From there, yeah, it gets a bit stranger and that's where we are today.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Lucky Luciano said:


> I have to agree I am twisted as a corkscrew, I have no clear moral principles and I have done bad shit but I´d still help an old lady over the street.


I was about to say an ENTP, but someone called me nice once. He obviously doesn't know me well. Look at it this way, I can be a really bad bastard if I wanna be, but other times I can be alright, it usually depends on the person. Like Lucky said, I'd still help an old woman across the street. To me, that's just common sense.


----------



## nerdberrycrunch (Aug 25, 2014)

I think I was tired when I wrote this. You're right. But it did take a long time to respond to each individual point you made. But still, I could have broken up the paragraphs, etc. Anyway, to answer your question, at the end of the day, I agree that morality comes down to who you are individually and that it means something different to everyone because people have different values. And how does anything I've posted count as gossiping? Lol. I'm just responding to your initial post. Not sure if FJs are any nicer than any other person, but I will say INFJs are some of the kindest people I've met.


----------

