"are you angry?"
a few people i've considered beta types have said they get asked this when they aren't angry at all. like others read anger into them.
Betas do you get asked this often?
"are you angry?"
a few people i've considered beta types have said they get asked this when they aren't angry at all. like others read anger into them.
All the time -- pisses me off.
Are you horny?Originally Posted by yeves
I hate it when people say shit like "don't get angry"
Not really asked if I am angry. When I am people know it. I get asked, "are you ok?" or "where are you?" occasionally. Probably because I get lost in thought or stare off in the middle of conversations sometimes.
Some have asked, "are you crazy?" I usually just say, "yes" to that. I figure if they are seriously asking they won't comprehend any rational response I could make to that sort of question.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
It happens more often than I would like it to happen.
Sigh.
i get asked "how can you have so much energy and/or how come you're so positive/enthusiastic" --however when i do get angry lol they don't need to ask
Angry beta's.... *shudders*
I've been wondering ever since joining what you guys were so upset about ;-)
Not really. I get asked "What are you thinking about?" very often.
hahahaha
yeh that one is funny too.
what are you thinking about?
I have many close friends and co-workers who have never seen me angry at all.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Why hold back?
I've dealt with this a lot from my ESE mom, a bit less so from my IEE dad and EII step mom. with mom it's usually a solicitous, 'are you ok?' or 'are you in a bad mood?' when I'm probably just a bit tense or halfway annoyed at some random bullshit I was thinking about. with the deltas it's more about apprehending and sometimes trivializing whatever 'state' you happen to be in, usually with innocuous inquiries, but occasionally with offhand commentary. never had this issue with gammas, though I haven't dealt with many... their approach seems a bit more direct and tangible, like so long as you aren't impinging on basic harmony or people you're generally fine, and betas just tend to get it. so on the whole, a bit more with alphas, though basically in this kind of childish way, Fi types overall are generally less concerned with how a person emotively 'seems.'
4w3-5w6-8w7
I generally know what people are capable of beforehand. So when someone does something that's typically out of character, i don't really see it that way.
I don't hold back. I'm direct to a fault, i just resolve it before it effects me.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I don't really get asked if I feel angry. I don't get asked about my feelings much at all... maybe it's because I don't really take them seriously. It's wierd, but I'm not sure if I know what a feeling of anger is. That is, anger directed at a specific person who has wronged me. I often feel so much involved in the other person, that there's no room left in me for a feeling of anger.
Not angry but I get a lot of, "what's wrong?" "you look down" But then I tell them my face just looks like that.
How? How do you not set limitations on what's typical of someone's character if you have Fe/Ti? Something isn't adding up...
I get this asked only when I am boiling on the inside, without even being aware of it myself at first.
Other than that, it is not a common question.
I get asked all the time if I'm on drugs. FML
^ Heh. I've had people say I look like a stoner before...
I mean I don't feel any loyalty to a specific emotion I am feeling at any certain time; I often have to consciously search to discover the source of my emotion. When I feel emotions, its not because of something within me that has been wronged or frustrated. Rather, my 'feelings' directly feed off of the people and situations surrounding me.
I often feel frustrated when I can't get something I want badly. But I would seldom describe the feeling as anger.
He is IEI-Ni
Extraverted ethics (feeling) internal dynamics of objects Fe Fe is responsible for the perception of an emotional state in an individual and the bodily and linguistic expression of emotions. Fe is able to influence others' emotional condition and to communicate its own, "infecting" others. Fe is used especially in generating and recognizing excitement and enthusiasm.
Setting limits on someone else's character seems more Fi related to me.
Introverted ethics (feeling) internal statics of fields Fi Fi is responsible for understanding the quality, nature, and proper maintenance of personal relations; makes moral judgments; and aspires to humanism and kindness. Fi has a strong understanding of the social hierarchy and how people feel about each other, their attitudes of like or dislike, enthrallment or disgust, repulsion or attraction, enmity or friendship.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I mean... you set limits on people, they're just very flexible limits, IMO. I get super pissed at objects when they don't perform as they're supposed to bc they're object, you know, you're supposed to be able to count on them to perform as advertised. Not so with people. Too many factors, too many variables, too much information. It's kinda like socionics, no real limits on *what* people can do, more like limits on how they'd do it. I don't really get surprised at people very often, unless I don't know them very well, or based my opinion on some fake part of their personality. Like, I had a co-worker tell me a story about drinking alarmingly heavily and I wasn't really surprised... that was kind of an area of his life I had no preconceptions about, and now that piece of info fits in with the rest of it, I suppose.
Also I rarely get "are you mad." It's usually "are you okay?" Which I find super annoying because it usually means "you're doing something that confuses/concerns/upsets me" and I'm like ugh you just interrupted my process of doing whatever I was doing by making me waste time smiling and assuring you I'm fine. And yeah, it's usually either very obvious that I'm mad (someone has done something unacceptable and I feel capable of correcting it) or just vaguely emotionally noncommittal as I withdraw from the situation until I am in private to deal with it (either I'm not sure who's in the wrong, if anyone; or, I can't do anything to fix the situation through a show of emotion, so there's no point in wasting the energy.)
I was not sure what she had meant by "limits on character" so I was hoping someone would comment on this. I don't think I set limits on other's. I do set my own boundaries though and those boundaries are very flexible, depending on the person. I am rarely surprised even though I may say, "oh you surprised me!", somewhere in the back of my mind I saw it coming which makes it easier to deal with with whether it is acceptable or not. I try not to prejudge people even when I do suspect they are going to do something totally fucked up down the line.
I am also quick to forgive offenses. I knew this girl who would steal from me all the time and deny it even when I would find my stuff in her purse. She would say that i gave it to her or that she bought the same thing. I even saw her wearing jewelry that my ex had engraved my name on and it was so comical the way she tried to say it was hers until I pointed out my name on it. She just took it off and handed it back to me with a shrug and a sorry. The worst part is she was so likable and funny that I would forget being angry with her. I finally set my boundaries with her and haven't seen her since. I am much happier without her around. I don't hide my stuff anymore. I feel free but it took a couple of years to get rid of her because she made me laugh and she seemed to have a good heart but was the biggest EIE kleptomaniac.
Limiting someone's character, for me, is to judge them right/wrong/good/bad, then not giving them any room to be anything different, so it does not surprise me when people who do this are often surprised by someone else.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Thinking back on SLE explosions I can laugh and they can laugh with me. They were not funny at the time though.
I had an ILI throw spaghetti, with sauce, on my ceiling once because I inadvertently made him jealous. It was a high ceiling over a staircase so I was unable to clean it off. I moved a few days later but the stain was still there. The apartment was immaculate otherwise so I got my deposit back.
ftr, I HAD a knack for turning the most mild mannered men into monsters.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Read it carefully Aylen.He is IEI-Ni
Extraverted ethics (feeling) internal dynamics of objects Fe Fe is responsible for the perception of an emotional state in an individual and the bodily and linguistic expression of emotions. Fe is able to influence others' emotional condition and to communicate its own, "infecting" others. Fe is used especially in generating and recognizing excitement and enthusiasm.
Setting limits on someone else's character seems more Fi related to me.
Introverted ethics (feeling) internal statics of fields Fi Fi is responsible for understanding the quality, nature, and proper maintenance of personal relations; makes moral judgments; and aspires to humanism and kindness. Fi has a strong understanding of the social hierarchy and how people feel about each other, their attitudes of like or dislike, enthrallment or disgust, repulsion or attraction, enmity or friendship.
I did. You want to share your take on it and on what pookie said or should I guess?
Edit: I am not so good at Te so any clarity would be appreciated. Thanks.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Emotional manipulation is exclusive of emotional forecasting and prediction. One is driving an emotional state while the other can reign it in.
Pookie actually has emotional holographic capability. So I'm thinking she's HP cognition not VS cognition.
In other words, Fe is going to create an emotional state while what Pookie is explaining is an assessment of a predefined state.
Can totally relate to this. When someone is "wronging" me in some way, I feel removed from the situation, as if Im merely observing the effect of this other person on myself. Afterwards I end up asking myself, "wait a minute - they just got away with something totally offensive...!?"
What Pookie (who is a he) was explaining was real life situations and how he deals with it from my perspective so I believe I understand him without further explanation on his part. What I am having a problem with is how you are attributing what he said to not being Fe. Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying. It felt like you were trying to insinuate something but wasn't direct about it. I know you think I am defensive sometimes but I am not being defensive right now. Just trying to get to the core of what you meant in your response to him.
You said:
I am sort of feeling like what you really wanted to say to him is that he is not an Fe/Ti user. Without coming right out and saying it. Is that correct?How? How do you not set limitations on what's typical of someone's character if you have Fe/Ti? Something isn't adding up...
Ni users have no problem seeing what is most probable and even predicting. This is why I am not fond of socionsspeak. Please explain what this means to you and how you view Fe as exclusive in this context.
An example would be helpful. I would even take some Te (what is commonly understood to be socionics facts) if it is not clear I will ask for more info.Emotional manipulation is exclusive of emotional forecasting and prediction
I am viewing what Pookie said through an Ni filter to begin with but my Ni seems to be failing to connect with your Ni.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
You either get that Fe is going to create and therefore manipulate emotional states or you don't. It isn't that complicated honestly. (In order to find out an object's potential, you have to manipulate it somehow. You don't already know its potential if you need to manipulate it, because if you did, you wouldn't need to manipulate it in the first place. You would just chose the best object for whatever purpose you needed it for upfront.)
I mean, Adolf ****** was an EIE who manipulated the crap out of a lot of people with compelling and captivating speeches until he ultimately failed and committed suicide. (But that's Fe in DA cognition.)
Typically out of character was intended to denote exceeding the limits set by others of that persons character. Not my own. Make more sense?
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I get a vague sense of circular reasoning in your response but I don't get it. Thanks for trying.
Edit: I think you can see the potential first then manipulate an "object" so to me the two do not seem mutually exclusive.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
People always perceive me as being very high strung. My whole life I've unintentionally inspired people to straighten up their behavior. If they're doing something stupid, and I look at them, they stop. Must be a look on my face.
i think in order to manipulate emotion you have to take in and perceive it. A big part of Fe is knowing what's socially appropriate at a given time. If my friend is crying and I want to make her feel better, I don't break into a happy dance or make a joke like I would with someone already in range of a good mood already, even though my goal may be to change her mood to a happier one. Instead, I commiserate. I take on an appropriately somber/angry/regretful/etc emotion, so that she can vent and then improve her mood. Anyway, assessing the potential of a person's or situations mood doesn't involve manipulating it. That's a separate process that comes first from which you can then choose to manipulate or not.
I also kind of resent this idea that all Fe is just emotional manipulation. I think by and large we're just expressive people. Often we're very passionate, and that's contagious. I don't think we really set out to influence people's emotion in a calculated way; it just happens.
Last edited by TheWholeEnglish; 10-15-2014 at 02:29 PM.
Jim, Invisible. "Socionics something something". The16types.info shoutbox; May 15, 2014.
Thank you for this. I get it. It is also what I was playing with in my own head but wasn't sure what she was trying to express so my head started to spin.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
WowowowwowWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOOOOOOOWWWWWW
Jim, Invisible. "Socionics something something". The16types.info shoutbox; May 15, 2014.
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWWWWWsquirrels from outer space
Jim, Invisible. "Socionics something something". The16types.info shoutbox; May 15, 2014.
If there's any subject at hand I have really strong opinions about, I suddenly transform from my docile, idiot self into a raging basket case piece of shit and I just pummel them with megatons of anger and don't even realize it. I can even force myself to get explosively mad at anything. People don't even recognize me when I do it.
Lately I've realized I can even do it deliberately. I scare the living shit out of people sometimes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
