How to Disginguish your Conflict & Duality Types

[lefty]

I think that actually its kind of a strange trick in nature that there's such a close alignment among the functions of our dual and conflictor. Granted this is debatable but to explain and speaking from a personal vantage point for example:

In the case of ISTJ vs INTP their conscious thinking functions oppose one another as well as the placement. Thinking in a dry theoretical textbook sense being the ISTPs primary mode of consciousness whereas for the ISTJ it is sencondary to sensing falling into a catagory I've seen described at the level where we take in information.

Their intuition also opposes in orientation (ne vs ni) and location...ni being the tertiary or third function in the ISTP that ive seen described as the level at which we make decisions.
The ISTJ, however is using ne in the fourth function or the or how we arrange our lives. It makes sense if you think of an inspector type in police work or i could see it going with accounting matching up with its duals system level...and it pairs well with the ti at the fourth level of the ENFJ representing structure and the crux of their "conscientious" orientation to life.

Anyway ... So yes they are very different, but I think people fall into a trap with their conflictors sometimes, because they can't distinguish between the two and its a temptation to hook up with your conflictor and to try to change them. It doesn't have to be romantic either it can be familial or professional or philosophical. What we can gather from socionics is that this endeavor is fruitless and we can avoid to much dependancy on our conflictors so as not to set ourselves up for failure on an emotional mental professional or private manner.

I think, however that since both are sensors (in this case) and both are introverts that it can be hard to tell. Today I was thinking of the difference between the two in those I've known in reality or on the computer...And I think both INTPs and INTJs can have a stern stare to them. I think also that both contain expiditor tendancies, but that in an ISTP its obviously more pronounced, but that there are elements of the ESTP running through the the kind of Model B section of the ISTJ. I look at type, now, as a primary set of four functions that are utilized differently, and a secondary less conscious set of four functions that we utiltize more privately and uncsonsciously which are the mirror of our conscious awareness.

So you could say that both an ISTJ and an ISTP are playful due to the artisan qualties, but that ISTPs are outwardly playful whereas ISTJs are privately playful. ISTPs are probably also more privately (or unconsciously) logistical and literally more supervisory (the model b ESTJ mirror part of their identity). If we can accept the idea that everyone is essentially their primary identity *and* the mirror type of that type.

Anyway I hope to speculate further and hope the topic is beneficial to someone out there...

[Ezra]

I'd say it was pretty fucking easy to make a distinction. Base Ti and base Si look very, very different, even if both the SLI and the LSI use the same functions.

[lefty]

I'd say it was pretty fucking easy to make a distinction. Base Ti and base Si look very, very different, even if both the SLI and the LSI use the same functions.

i think that istjs are thought to sometimes participate in activities that an istp would too including carpentry, construction, hunting, and cooking. so ... touche.

[Sabo]

If you can't naturally distinguish between your dual and your conflictor, then socionics is a complete failure. ;-)

[xyz]

Well, so far, I can't sense ENFj's specifically but I can detect betas from quite a bit away.

Anyway, I think a better excercise would be distinguishing your duals from your semi duals.

[marooned]

SLE: is intense. Orange juice.
LSE: is subdued. Slightly watered down orange juice.

PoLR: water, no juice

? ?

[lefty]

If you can't naturally distinguish between your dual and your conflictor, then socionics is a complete failure. ;-)

i think actually that statement makes no sense. the purpose of socionics is to illuminate and distinguish and if we naturally did it then socionics wouldn't be necessary.

[lefty]

Well, so far, I can't sense ENFj's specifically but I can detect betas from quite a bit away.

Anyway, I think a better excercise would be distinguishing your duals from your semi duals.

Well that could be another thread the variation between duals and semi-duals. I think they're closer, but that there are serious problems with deficits from the beginning...In the case with me the fact that the INTJ is extroverted sensory when I obviously need a lot of si from a partner. the ni in the intj means they can't keep up with my patterns of behavior and the need for reflection by me of the partner with my ni becomes diminished which lessons the effect of the overall relationship.

[lefty]

do we smell funny?

i think the aggression and energy in betas is pure and not the response to repression (as i view delta passive aggressive tendancies) and i feel like they can keep up with me and i enjoy it very much, but also am in love with members of all quadras finding a way to act within something for the greater good all getting something of what they need from everyone else.


peace,

[Ezra]

i think that istjs are thought to sometimes participate in activities that an istp would too including carpentry, construction, hunting, and cooking. so ... touche.

The stereotypes are making me shit cliches.

[zenbrat]

I have confused the two, at times, but not for long. Spending just one day with a conflictor brings a slew of incompatibilities to light.

SLE = demanding
LSE = commanding

I can handle demands, because they allow for response. Being commanded (with no regard for my input) brings every fiber of my being into a confrontational stance.

[Blaze]

I have confused the two, at times, but not for long. Spending just one day with a conflictor brings a slew of incompatibilities to light.

SLE = demanding
LSE = commanding

I can handle demands, because they allow for response. Being commanded (with no regard for my input) brings every fiber of my being into a confrontational stance.

demanding and commanding seem kind of close. either way the other person wants you to do something. can you contrast this a little more?

[zenbrat]

demanding and commanding seem kind of close. either way the other person wants you to do something. can you contrast this a little more?

True, they are similar. To contrast:

demand = to ask authoritatively (make a request)

command = to direct authoritatively (give an order)

For example:

SLE = "Could you check show times at the theater and let me know by 6 o'clock? I really want to see Iron Man. Is that cool with you?"

LSE = "Check show times at the theater for Iron Man and let me know by 6 o'clock."

[lefty]

The stereotypes are making me shit cliches.

perhaps you need some fiber...now take your crochety ass to delta.

[lefty]

I have confused the two, at times, but not for long. Spending just one day with a conflictor brings a slew of incompatibilities to light.

SLE = demanding
LSE = commanding

I can handle demands, because they allow for response. Being commanded (with no regard for my input) brings every fiber of my being into a confrontational stance.

Also I realized in therapy today that as a "programmer" i think i basically feel like unless someone accepts my analysis as being often valid that i wont allow myself to shift into any submissive type of position. I dont want my ethics dismantled by bratty sensors with problems...not that they're all that way fortunately some of them are happy people. Maybe this is a nice way of saying I feel eliteist about intuition. I think its connected to a broader philosophical economical and environmental balance that needs to shift. and a lot of my views are molded by erich fromm's ideas about socialism and producing what is necessary and enriching a culture through investment in the self actualizaiton of its citizens in purely humanistic terms.

anyway point is...how you feel is valid and you dont need people'ls permission to feel that way and you either have empathy or you dont or you have problems sustaining it but for those of us who feel like we have a pretty good grip on our ethical stand then we're willing to learn more and i dont think we're the ones who need to change i think we're already future oriented and there's no shame in our game...there's nothing wrong with being what we are and we're a precious minority in the world.

anyway im the judge of my own actions and there's nothing else to be ...not now or in the future and the futuer *is* as soon as you allow it to *be* !



im not sure how to distinguish those two. i guess one implies ownership. im not really sure, but i only deal well with considerate and constructive criticism.

[Ezra]

True, they are similar. To contrast:

demand = to ask authoritatively (make a request)

command = to direct authoritatively (give an order)

For example:

SLE = "Could you check show times at the theater and let me know by 6 o'clock? I really want to see Iron Man. Is that cool with you?"

LSE = "Check show times at the theater for Iron Man and let me know by 6 o'clock."

Then by your standards, I'm certainly an LSE, because this is exactly what I do and get criticised for.

What are these styles of speech related to? Because it's clearly not valued Se, in your eyes. I always saw commands as Se related (with a bit of weak Fi thrown in); they're about organising people without question and without regards to their feelings. Now you're telling me they're related to someone who not only doesn't value Se, but actually values Fi (and thus people's feelings).

perhaps you need some fiber...now take your crochety ass to delta.

Yes, because that's where I belong, oh yes, oh yes it is. Ooh baby.

[duality is cringe]

I can see where you're getting at, but admittedly I don't see too much of a difference. Sometimes I think the IEI needs a kick in the ass to help the her stay on track.

I don't see the difference either. Neither one of them seems like a question. Are you really going to say no to the SLE question? At least the LSE is honest and doesn't insult your intelligence by giving you the illusion that you actually have a choice.

[marooned]

I didn't edit this for lack of time... so it may be kind of "off".

I tend to see leading as demanding... as giving commands and orders. But with enough protestation to the demand/command or refusal to comply, the leading type will reconsider, or insist, or retract it, or whatever (depending). Mainly the demand/command is not always something that is non-negotiable (and is not always an order)… it is often a reflection of what the person wants to happen now expressed in "command language." This is because the leading person often just naturally expresses themselves in a commanding way in interaction with others… it is automatic.

I suspect this is because the leading person is more immediately aware of exactly what they want to happen at the time and starts dishing out commands to make it happen. This works well for leading because they keep getting side-tracked and taking trips into lala land where they don't actually get anything done (though I'm not saying is unproductive… they'll get things done eventually ). So an order of "do this. do it now" can be helpful because then they can't get out of doing it so easily. The person interprets the commands being dished out as requests put in the command language - as things that add a sense of the immediate to what had been stretched out in time before (by making them immediate they can be implemented and made "real"). Though sometimes they're commands dished out in the command language and have a sort of finality to them. But this is also helpful because if you know they won't bend on it no matter what, then it makes the world less wishy-washy because you're used to bending everything so when something can't be bent, that means you'll have to do something rather than postponing it or finding a way out of it.

ETA: Not bending means it's certain. Things that can't be bent are exciting in a world where everything bends and flops over.

This way seems much more honest, direct, and clear because there is no question about what the leading person actually wants. So negotiation about what to do tends to be in the realm of will and who wants what, conveniently skipping over confusion where people really want one thing but they put their request in this confusing way that suggests they don't really want that and then when things don't go the way they actually wanted (because they weren't clear and direct) they make a fuss. Of course often times we (as in anyone of any type) don't know what we want.

I much prefer this sort of directness to things like "could you maybe do this, well if you want to, I mean only if you feel like it, but it would really mean a lot to me if you did, well nevermind you don't have to, I'm not sure I care about it anyway…" Of course then again I feel like a hypocrite because I can be unclear and indirect myself. But I try to take responsibility for this. I don't (or try not to) blame someone else if they were confused because I wasn't clear enough.

[Blaze]

conflictor: i go ewww get away inside (no offense anybody)

dual: "dual? where? you mean right here in front of me? huh? i still can't see them...."

[zenbrat]

Then by your standards, I'm certainly an LSE, because this is exactly what I do and get criticised for.

What are these styles of speech related to? Because it's clearly not valued Se, in your eyes. I always saw commands as Se related (with a bit of weak Fi thrown in); they're about organising people without question and without regards to their feelings. Now you're telling me they're related to someone who not only doesn't value Se, but actually values Fi (and thus people's feelings).

I think it is important to regard each type as a block of multiple, interrelated functions rather than the embodiment of its dominant function.

Se senses how much pressure is required to get the individual to comply without creating resistance. Resistance is an obstacle to getting what you want. Needing/wanting something from someone who does not like you makes the endeavor nearly impossible. These conclusions may be drawn logically (SeTi) or ethically (SeFi). SeTi and SeFi will both be 'aggressive' [assertive, persistent] about getting a result but neither will be commanding.

Remember, SLE's hidden agenda is "to be loved". SLE's communication style is confident, persuasive, and conflict-avoidant. Salesman tactics.

SLE does not confidently understand 'relationship ethics', i.e. Fi. He is not considering other people's feelings when he avoids conflict - he is considering his own feelings, needs and interests.

[Creepy-Diana]

.