ST - soldier without a cause - NF

[UDP]

Just recently I had a sort of major break through about something, particularly concerning being ST. I experienced it from the LSE perspective of course....


At any rate, I realized why I am always looking to or trying to find a code of beliefs - for myself, an LSE, something to "serve". For me, it has to do with implementation. I have come to realize that, almost my entire perspective and psychological formulation is based on implementation of tasks in terms of how they lead to goals and objectives (Te). Even when I was discussing spirituality or beliefs with someone, it was all about implementation, and my ethical take was totally about how to go about the goals, rather than actual ethical interpretation. Basically, my stance on beliefs and spirituality was "action" and movement, rather than ethical consideration.

I was comparing notes with an INFj, and, when we did, I was extremely alarmed at our differences on a matter. What I thought was something spiritual was more like a machine readout. Indeed, to me, the INFj's notes were totally without any action or implementation mechanisms at all. But the difference was so remarkably clear that it shocked me. I was analyzing the conversation via socionics throughout, but it was definitely a breakthrough in understanding for me.

For myself, I realized how unconscious I can be / am about actual ethics, and furthermore, the actual differentiation between an Fi approaching a situation and a Te approaching a situation. It very much made me feel like a soldier, or like James Bond even, but not in a totally glorious way. Rather, it was somewhat alarming because I "experienced" an aspect of reality in a more direct way that I barely ever consider, and as such, it felt like I was blinded, or vastly incompetent. Like, James Bond listening for his mission over an earpiece, in some totally new and distant place, but then, the earpiece goes completely silent and there is nothing - so what do you do? The easy, basic instinct is to take direct action towards the survival of resources or ideas that are important, but, as far as determining the ethical parameters of the situation.... nothing.

It is funny because, even studying socionics and life itself, you think you kind of have it figured out and have a grasp on your weaknesses. But then you get a glimpse of something, and, especially comparing it to someone of a complementary nature (and probably most severe in terms of your dual), you realize just how lopsided your psychological disposition is. Maybe it is a finer aspect of duality - this realization - or maybe it can happen in other settings.

Basically, I feel like a soldier or worker or something, but without a real sense of spirituality or mind. Maybe it is a realization STs have when being appropriately humbled by an NF. It sort of made me feel hollow at first, and at the same time, really made me question my judgment and interpretation of things. In one sense, it made me feel dependent on other people for ethical judgment, or just very unconfident about such things in general.




Has anyone else seen or experienced this in terms of ST - NF relations?

[PotatoSpirit]

Basically, I feel like a soldier or worker or something, but without a real sense of spirituality or mind. Maybe it is a realization STs have when being appropriately humbled by an NF. It sort of made me feel hollow at first, and at the same time, really made me question my judgment and interpretation of things.

I actually relate to that, but I have a totally different feeling for it: I like it, I consider it a strength.
I guess it might be a question of whether your ST nature is in sync with your beliefs?

[leckysupport]

Has anyone else seen or experienced this in terms of ST - NF relations?

Yes.

[Ezra]

The problem is not what a soldier does but what a soldier is. (WHAT A CLICHE.)

Basically, if you can't see the logic and rationale behind actions, you're simply a robot.

For me, I need to know exactly what I'm doing before I do it. I need to know that it is in line with my beliefs and my principles, otherwise I refuse to carry out that action. In essence, I've harnessed the necessary criteria for acting on something. I will gladly follow orders, so long as they coincide with my values, which is exactly why I couldn't join the army. Too much of the army's values, principles and beliefs do not coincide with my own.

[UDP]

Basically, I feel like a soldier or worker or something, but without a real sense of spirituality or mind. Maybe it is a realization STs have when being appropriately humbled by an NF. It sort of made me feel hollow at first, and at the same time, really made me question my judgment and interpretation of things.

I actually relate to that, but I have a totally different feeling for it: I like it, I consider it a strength.
I guess it might be a question of whether your ST nature is in sync with your beliefs?

The point is realizing how mechanical you are.

It is not a strength or a weakness. It was just a shock for me to realize that I halve almost no natural ethical comprehension at all, even the mechanism that I thought was ethically related was just a part of the process for implementation.

What was scary for me was realizing that I have almost no grasp on NF type ethical matters at all. It's not just me, either. LSI's, my counterparts, are the exact same way - implementation or inspection of the process. But what it is they are enforcing, acting out -- they have (or so it seems) no way of telling whether or not it is "ethical" (I suppose LSI's use Fe from an EIE to monitor it, and an LSE uses Fi to try to monitor if their actions are correct.). But going back to the main point - (which I am not finding an easy analogy for), it is just odd.


more later when I have time.

[Logos]

You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

[Expat]

The horror. The horror.

[Ezra]

When I was here, I wanted to be there; when I was there, all I could think of was getting back into the jungle. I'm here a week now... waiting for a mission... getting softer; every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger. Each time I looked around, the walls moved in a little tighter.

[PotatoSpirit]

It is not a strength or a weakness. It was just a shock for me to realize that I halve almost no natural ethical comprehension at all, even the mechanism that I thought was ethically related was just a part of the process for implementation.

What was scary for me was realizing that I have almost no grasp on NF type ethical matters at all.

Assuming I know what NF ethics are (maybe they are just F ethics, maybe I'm talking about something totally different)...

I just think that you consider NF ethics to be the right ones, and that is why you were shocked and scared when you discovered to be "mechanical". I believe NF ethics are silly and inefficient (even if cute), and that's why I consider not having them a strength.

But what it is they are enforcing, acting out -- they have (or so it seems) no way of telling whether or not it is "ethical"

Of course we have a way of telling if it's ethical, and that way is T (Ti?).

[UDP]

That too, and....


Perhaps a more profound realization that each psychological type is extremely lopsided. There is something very subtle that I am trying to get at but can't describe yet. It was understanding that I AM so lopsided, and so too is everyone else. I thought you could balance it by 'conscious effort', but even then, it seems as though the psychological designation is so strong. It is not that "I have no concept of morality", no, it was a realization of how dominated the entire mental process is by the leading function. Maybe this was a strong flare, or maybe it is you really "are" your leading function, more so than I realize.

Mostly this is surprising because when I actually wrote down something in terms of spirituality, it was completely un-contrived and raw - and then looking at it in retrospect, it was pure . It badly needed Fi. And you could even see Si / Ne: it was totally focused on "implementation". It was weird to take a step back and view it: it was extremely precise, and, undeniably would have got the job done. It even incorporated ethics. But the ethical aspect of it was still totally dominated by Te, almost completely.



So what sort of big picture thing can I/we take away form this? For me it was a surprisingly stark realization of just how much someone is governed by their dominant function - and consequently, how much that dominant function influenced all else. Maybe it is extra for me, because I'm Te-subtype. Yes, all people are human and have all their functions in some order, but that event made me realize just how much influence the dominant function has.

[mustachio]

i realise that i'm not very good with the whole "ethics thing" but i don't feel any guilt about it at all. on the contrary, i find it liberating not to have to deal with this sort of thing. i find it to be an impediment to reaching your personal goals. sometimes, i can't help but find that people who spend energy thinking about this stuff are ridiculous. ethics aren't always indispensable. they can't provide an answer to everything, even spiritually. i've never felt like a soldier but rather a warrior or some sort of mercenary out to get his own. not necessarily crushing people on the way, but definitely getting my piece some way or another.

[UDP]

Right. Basically, that's all there is in the ST mind set -- even in terms of ethical considerations.

It made me think about ST-NF duality in a totally different way. (And consequently socionics in general)


It's like there is only implementation and execution, and everything else is not really as important or paid much attention to. Ethics, planning - its all out the window.

but i don't feel any guilt about it at all

It is not guilt I feel, just... hmmm.... a sort of realization of how I've been acting all along. Having a legitimate comparison to others, and realizing how mechanical, how mercenary things are.


Wikisocion - yes
[web:379d0307f7]http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Club_of_pragmatists[/web:379d0307f7]




In a psychological sense - of how humans interact with reality - it very much seems like STs are the body. Hands, particularly. The tools of implementation. NTs - the mind, thinking. NFs seem to be the heart and soul. SFs the mouth, speech, relating to others. I previously thought such an analogy was an over simplification, but now, not so much. If you break it down to the actual elements and what aspects of reality you're dealing with, it makes sense. "Hands" are the manifestation, of course, and not the source. The source is the order of the functions, etc.

[Expat]

I'd really advise thinking more in terms of Delta ST - NF than in simply ST - NF. What PotatoSpirit and LRHH are doing is giving the Beta ST perspective.

When writing the Club descriptions, I made a point of saying that they are less important than the Quadras, and in fact exist as a "group" only in a more superficial way. When you go to deeper and inner feelings and motivations, the Clubs don't hold together.

As I wrote, if you have a group of loosely-connected people who get together to discuss things like repairing cars, intensive DIY, etc, because that's what they most enjoy doing in their free time, possibly most of them will be STs, both Betas and Deltas. However, the moment that such a group "moves on" to other matters, especially personal ones, the quadras will predominate.

[UDP]

I'd really advise thinking more in terms of Delta ST - NF than in simply ST - NF. What PotatoSpirit and LRHH are doing is giving the Beta ST perspective.

Good call.

[UDP]

You're being serious, right Carla?

[UDP]

Even when I was "looking at" other functions, trying to understand them, or use them, it was everything was Te vision. I thought I could isolate it and genuinely "use" Fi or Ne or Se separately, sort of on its own, but now I realize that even when I intentionally do that, it very well could totally be through a Te perspective. Even when I think about them, my thoughts are how these functions work via Te, or the Te aspect of reality. I am realizing just what it means to have (a) base function and how (it) affects everything else that I look at, consider, think about, interact with, etc. I (am realizing) how much of an inescapable quality there is too it, which I never understood, or considered, until now.


In the past I have looked at rick's site's "Psychological Lopsidedness" article, and understood it, but when I thought I was LII, it was more a superficial understanding "Yes, this makes perfect sense". But only just recently have I gotten a deeper realization of what it means to be "psychologically lopsided" (which is = to being a normal type, as in, everyone has a functional ordering, and it is natural).

But it totally blew my mind somewhat, because now I am realizing that people - all people, are like this. More clarity comes when you get the whole ego block in picture -- Ti through Se, Te through Si, etc. Types become dramatically more pronounced (provided you accurately have them and discerned them already).

Also, this really makes me think types cannot change over time. The mind can adjust and adapt, but I doubt it has anything to do with the actual real psychological frame, the order of the functions. I realize in myself they are thoroughly ingrained - hardwired.

Again, I wonder somewhat if it is because I am a Te-subtype Te dominant (or if there is no subtypes ultimately, and it is more a "preference" like handedness)-- but as I was saying, I wonder if this was so vivid for me because I am logical subtype, and "extra Te heavy" ((which might make sense due to my extremely weak Fi))...... or if it is really this way with everyone.



In considering people I know well (extremely well - as in, immediate family members who I've spent time around in all types of circumstances for years), I would say it really is this way for everyone. Subtype just seems to be a preference, or something they are more comfortable with expressing, but only in a minor way. The real psychological dominance of one function has been always and constantly apparent in the 3 people I know best, and as long as I have known them, their type-tendencies have not changed in any way, over my whole life.

So yeah, this realization for me makes me really doubt the possibility of type change. More than anything it seems like peoples self awareness + awareness of socionics changes, not types. Which is why I say, and will always say, I was never an LII. I did not change my type, I changed my understanding of my type, and with it, a huge shift in personal identity also took place. And, it was not intentional, either. It took me a long time to blossom into my real self, get closer to it, and know who I am and how I have to go about life to be me. But now, at this time, I am more sure about my type than ever before. I have no second thoughts about being another type, and the distant second option of being ENTj also has diminished even further. It is extremely, extremely unlikely my dual has Se creative.