I'm jumping ship

[unefille]

I've never quite understood Betas and Se. It's interesting that you think it's gauche when Gammas are so overt about it. Is it like you really value money and status but you think you should pretend that you don't because that looks bad?

I value money a lot less than I value status/image and I think it might be the other way around for Gammas? Like, money is this incredibly unvalued thing, tbh -- money is only a means if the image you value requires money to be maintained -- so I never focus on money itself and if there was another way of living the lifestyle I've selected,I'd happily abandon money altogether. How much money I have/plan to make -- that's possibly among the most inane and painful conversations I can think of having. I think some Betas might really value looking 'homeless' in a 'no-one else looks as authentically and genuinely homeless as I do' sort of way -- it depends on whatever random image/cultural niche they've decided to adopt. And I think that's where the gauche-ness comes in -- because money is just a tool, a 'base material' if you will, talking about it almost misses the point; it's part of the 'dirty process' that you just don't mention.

Sort of like, when you show up at a wedding, you don't talk about the hours you spent straightening your hair, painting your toenails, waxing etc. -- you want the image to look effortless and natural; you want people to focus on the end product, not the brute processes that produced it. I just often feel that for Gammas, having money and/or financial security IS the end product, rather than a means to an end.

[strrrng]

ahahaha. Actually no. Those are the people I don't get! I usually stumble in rolled out of bed, mutter "coffee. ...please," spill half of it on myself, and then laugh loudly while reading something on my computer while people look at me like i'm crazy. I probably look homeless.

LOL that is fucking hilarious. It reminded me of christy ("christy b"), because I would talk to her while she was at a coffee shop and she would tell me how she kept loling out loud and all the people were looking at her -- this crazy lady who had been in there for 5 hours drinking coffee non-stop.

But yeah, starbucks is like a zoo of artificiality. I love watching people there; you get the most entertaining variety (milf, pseudo-business man, outcast, dumb teenage girls).

[UDP]

I totally never even noticed the way I do this, but that's so true, maybe especially for EIEs.

I know, and it's infuriating. It's something that I just try to avoid or not think about, because when you start hammering on someone for how they are naturally it's not going to lead to anything good.

note: it would be less of a problem if it wasn't so "in my face" and feeling like I have to react to it or "deal with it" - which is where some of the conflict arises (with EIEs in real life)

I was actually just going to write (and before I saw his post) that I really liked unefille's post

The post was articulate.

Gauche is an extravagent word for "tactless"; it's like you're putting on, infinitely, trying to show off. I was expressing my dislike of the wordiness, which seems extra-contrived. I'm sure it actually wasn't, but that's how I react to it. You don't like my response? You can deal with it too, Ritella.

I don't personally have anything against unefile.
I understand that's just how "she is"


ETA: "note"

[UDP]

Just to reiterate that it isn't anything personal, I pointed out this sort of thing about one of the authors in a text I read at school and "voiced my opinions" on it to the teacher, who actually agreed with me (another delta ST) - the author was wordiness to the point of lacking clarity.

The interesting thing about it is that, apparently, to EIEs/etc, it is how they are "more clear".

[Ritella]

I know, and it's infuriating. It's something that I just try to avoid or not think about, because when you start hammering on someone for how they are naturally it's not going to lead to anything good.

note: it would be less of a problem if it wasn't so "in my face" and feeling like I have to react to it or "deal with it" - which is where some of the conflict arises (with EIEs in real life)

The post was articulate.

Gauche is an extravagent word for "tactless"; it's like you're putting on, infinitely, trying to show off. I was expressing my dislike of the wordiness, which seems extra-contrived. I'm sure it actually wasn't, but that's how I react to it. You don't like my response? You can deal with it too, Ritella.

I don't personally have anything against unefile.
I understand that's just how "she is"


ETA: "note"

UDP I just CHOKED on my soup. This is the funniest thing I've read in weeks. Your last line seemed completely out of left field, even for you. "I understand that's just how 'she is'." What a euphism, like you're calling a retarded person "mentally challenged." I really don't even know where to begin with this post.
And, I'm sorry, but your " You don't like my response? You can deal with it too, Ritella." Are you in a bad mood or something or did you just work out and feel the need to flex your guns? Why are you telling me to deal with it? I am dealing with it- as in, I don't care!

[unefille]

Gauche is an extravagent word for "tactless".

Ok, this actually bugs me quite a bit: there are no such things as 'extravangant words' -- there are simply WORDS which either serve to express what you want to say, or don't. Synonymous words are words 'similar' but not 'identical' in meaning. In this case, gauche expressed a much more negative affect, which 'tactless' would not have captured. Gauche is also often used in relation to excessive displays of wealth, while tactless is much more generic in its application. 'tactless' would have served as a very poor substitute, had I been bothered to sit down and think of how to express myself so as to deliberately cloak my vocab.

[xyz]

You guys sure do fight a lot.Cmon. Kiss n makeup.

[strrrng]

Are you in a bad mood or something or did you just work out and feel the need to flex your guns?

lmfao


@unefille: don't worry. Not everyone can deliver as colorful connotations and string together such elegant syntax as us special beta NF's <3 The inferior will always criticize the superior for demonstrating their abilities.

[Joy]

I value money a lot less than I value status/image and I think it might be the other way around for Gammas? Like, money is this incredibly unvalued thing, tbh -- money is only a means if the image you value requires money to be maintained

To be honest, it's almost hard for me to believe that I'm hearing (reading, whatever) someone actually admitting to this.

Anyways, you're right about Gammas in general, I think. At this point though I recognize that money in and of itself doesn't give one freedom or security. And whatever fulfillment people may hope to gain by increasing their wealth or boosting their image cannot be found there.

[Ritella]

Ok, this actually bugs me quite a bit: there are no such things as 'extravangant words' -- there are simply WORDS which either serve to express what you want to say, or don't. Synonymous words are words 'similar' but not 'identical' in meaning. In this case, gauche expressed a much more negative affect, which 'tactless' would not have captured. Gauche is also often used in relation to excessive displays of wealth, while tactless is much more generic in its application. 'tactless' would have served as a very poor substitute, had I been bothered to sit down and think of how to express myself so as to deliberately cloak my vocab.

I understand what you mean. I've had these arguments with him as well. He thinks I'm being hyper-intellectual or something and I just think he's being pedestrian.

[Ritella]

To be honest, it's almost hard for me to believe that I'm hearing (reading, whatever) someone actually admitting to this.

Anyways, you're right about Gammas in general, I think. At this point though I recognize that money in and of itself doesn't give one freedom or security. And whatever fulfillment people may hope to gain by increasing their wealth or boosting their image cannot be found there.

wait, what about it is hard for you to believe? and can you explain more how you view gammas and money/status/image?

[Minde]

Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem is with using long and "extravagant" words. Personally, so long as they aren't used to put people down (e.g. purposefully go over their heads), I think they're fine. In fact, I love using long and not-oft-used words, playing with their sounds and combinations. The English language is so fun in that regard. Also, a lot of times the "simpler" words don't quite express what I'm thinking as well as a rarer one would.

I, personally, like how Unefille writes, including her use of a wide vocabulary. It's refreshing, in a way, to see words so well used and composed. There is far too little of it in the world, imo.

[unefille]

To be honest, it's almost hard for me to believe that I'm hearing (reading, whatever) someone actually admitting to this.

lol! That actually reminds of a time I was having dinner with an LIE friend of mine -- I think we mutually amuse each other. I remember telling him that I was considering going corporate for a few years before moving to the international civil service (and 'saving the world' -- he even had raised eyebrows when he said those words, lol) because I wanted to have a nest-egg in place in case I became poor and homeless and he actually BEAMED at me and said 'wow, I never knew you had that degree of pragmatism, [unefille]!' He was so impressed that I wasn't going to be some loony homeless person -- I'm terrified to think exactly how impractical and insane he believed me to be before I told him that.

[redbaron]

lol! That actually reminds of a time I was having dinner with an LIE friend of mine -- I think we mutually amuse each other. I remember telling him that I was considering going corporate for a few years before moving to the international civil service (and 'saving the world' -- he even had raised eyebrows when he said those words, lol) because I wanted to have a nest-egg in place in case I became poor and homeless and he actually BEAMED at me and said 'wow, I never knew you had that degree of pragmatism, [unefille]!' He was so impressed that I wasn't going to be some loony homeless person -- I'm terrified to think exactly how impractical and insane he believed me to be before I told him that.

that is hilarious.

fwiw, I love the way you write!

[strrrng]

Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem is with using long and "extravagant" words. Personally, so long as they aren't used to put people down (e.g. purposefully go over their heads), I think they're fine. In fact, I love using long and not-oft-used words, playing with their sounds and combinations. The English language is so fun in that regard. Also, a lot of times the "simpler" words don't quite express what I'm thinking as well as a rarer one would.

I, personally, like how Unefille writes, including her use of a wide vocabulary. It's refreshing, in a way, to see words so well used and composed. There is far too little of it in the world, imo.

+10

It's the "bigger" words that create more powerful meaning and impact for the writing. I can say someone was bad, or that they were nefarious. Words are bullets, packed with specific ingredients inside that will disseminate throughout the person's mind once the bullet enters and explodes. Vocabulary matters not to sound smart, but to give the most saturation and detail to one's conceptions and illustrations of them.

[hellothere]

UDP I just CHOKED on my soup. This is the funniest thing I've read in weeks. Your last line seemed completely out of left field, even for you. "I understand that's just how 'she is'." What a euphism, like you're calling a retarded person "mentally challenged." I really don't even know where to begin with this post.
And, I'm sorry, but your " You don't like my response? You can deal with it too, Ritella." Are you in a bad mood or something or did you just work out and feel the need to flex your guns? Why are you telling me to deal with it? I am dealing with it- as in, I don't care!

to be fair to UDP I think what he was trying to say was that he was not presenting and an objective evaluation of unefille or her writing, just a personal preference away from the aforementioned qualities. Its like, he wasn't talking about the 'object' but rather the relation between two objects, which is not exclusively a property of either one alone. So I think you're being a bit harsh, though maybe he was tactless the way he expressed it.

[Ritella]

to be fair to UDP I think what he was trying to say was that he was not presenting and an objective evaluation of unefille or her writing, just a personal preference away from the aforementioned qualities. Its like, he wasn't talking about the 'object' but rather the relation between two objects, which is not exclusively a property of either one alone. So I think you're being a bit harsh, though maybe he was tactless the way he expressed it.

i know. i don't think he meant it at all in a mean way. it just came out all tragically wrong.
i thought maybe people would also find this funny, but i guess not.
ugh. why can people not just laugh at themselves when these awkward things happen?

EDIT: I worked with an ILI. He was almost universally hated for his lack of Fe. Everyone was always annoyed at how "rude" and blunt he was. I knew that people would just be like "ugh" and talk about him behind his back whenever he made an inappropriate comment. What I did was that I just started making fun of him about it. Whenever everyone would act nice to him, but be thinking "how could you say that?" I'd laugh and call him out on it. Maybe this is something that works out better in real life, but it basically had the effect of making him likeable because people began to see that he had a sense of humor about his faults and that you could tell him stuff that annoyed you about him (in an attempt to work at a relationship) rather than just writing him off.

[hellothere]

i know. i don't think he meant it at all in a mean way. it just came out all tragically wrong.
i thought maybe people would also find this funny, but i guess not.
ugh. why can people not just laugh at themselves when these awkward things happen?

well sometimes humour is lost over the internet (I'm sure both UDP and yourself know all about this ), so I wasn't sure if you were seriously accusing him of using that line as a euphemism for something more offensive

[strrrng]

i know. i don't think he meant it at all in a mean way. it just came out all tragically wrong.
i thought maybe people would also find this funny, but i guess not.
ugh. why can people not just laugh at themselves when these awkward things happen?

I found it pretty funny

[Ritella]

I found it pretty funny

thank god. it was hilarious. i seriously almost choked. it felt like one of those painfully awkward moments in "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

[munenori2]

It's the "bigger" words that create more powerful meaning and impact for the writing. I can say someone was bad, or that they were nefarious. Words are bullets, packed with specific ingredients inside that will disseminate throughout the person's mind once the bullet enters and explodes. Vocabulary matters not to sound smart, but to give the most saturation and detail to one's conceptions and illustrations of them.

Spoken like a writer. One thing I will give you, Nick, is that you pull some pretty sweet vocab out, particularly when you get in explanation mode. Makes me nostalgic for my youthful reading days.

[strrrng]

Spoken like a writer. One thing I will give you, Nick, is that you pull some pretty sweet vocab out, particularly when you get in explanation mode. Makes me nostalgic for my youthful reading days.

Thanks


nostalgia ftw!

[strrrng]

Yeah, that was really insightful strrrng. It kind of reminded me of the movie Atonement, with the whole 'words can hit like bullets' symbolism, which kind of had me feeling all pensive at the time.

Thanks. Language metaphors typically make me feel that way too, heh.

I honestly do think that this where Beta NF's flourish the most at; they really handle and use the 'revolver' like a skilled artist.

I would have to agree. Maybe it has something to do with capturing the internal dynamics (which essentially is about abstract activity) of both fields and objects (making for an extremely integral depiction of something), I don't know. There does seem to be a very specific penchant for writing among many beta NF's, with subtle characteristics distributed consistently.

[Joy]

lol! That actually reminds of a time I was having dinner with an LIE friend of mine -- I think we mutually amuse each other. I remember telling him that I was considering going corporate for a few years before moving to the international civil service (and 'saving the world' -- he even had raised eyebrows when he said those words, lol) because I wanted to have a nest-egg in place in case I became poor and homeless and he actually BEAMED at me and said 'wow, I never knew you had that degree of pragmatism, [unefille]!' He was so impressed that I wasn't going to be some loony homeless person -- I'm terrified to think exactly how impractical and insane he believed me to be before I told him that.

lol

He probably wasn't thinking at all about the image of a "loony homeless person". He most likely made that comment because the idea of having a nest egg didn't mesh with his idea of the type of thing you'd typically do. Perhaps he thinks you're more likely to do what you feel like doing regardless of the consequences, including spending everything you make or

wait, what about it is hard for you to believe?

From my (and I thought everyone's?) perspective, if you're concerned with image/status, it's a character flaw that you're most likely unaware of. It's an unhealthy and unconscious insecurity, a negative and embarrassing thing that one would tend to be in denial about, even if it was the driving force behind of all of their decisions.

I suppose I could see others feeling this way about those who are highly motivated by financial freedom though. And the way unefille explained it didn't make it sound unhealthy at all. It sounded like just another aspect of lifestyle.

unefille, who defines the image? Who sets the status? Is it something that you perceive in your mind and work toward because you like the idea of living that image/status? If you felt you had attained the image/status you desire, would it matter if others thought you were a miserable failure? Or do you use their reactions to and opinions of you to determine where you're at image/status-wise?

and can you explain more how you view gammas and money/status/image?

From a Gamma perspective, image and status are meaningless at best. They're a superficial and useless reason for people to do a lot of pointless and even potentially harmful stuff. Striving for an image/status (especially in the eyes of others) is a waste of one's life.

And the thing about money isn't even about money itself. It's about doing things that make business/financial sense. It's about freedom. It's about choices and opportunities and growth. Business is fun, and the reward of good business/financial practices is a happy, healthy family (assuming the Fi's there, of course). People who say that money isn't important and then spend their lives working for it appear short sighted to Gammas.

[Joy]

Interesting unefille, so many of these points make sense. Not that I'd necessarily want to admit it, but maintaining a well composed sense of self really is held in higher regards to my personal 'being' than my bank account.

Who isn't that true for though? It's about what defines one's sense of self.

unefille, who defines the image? Who sets the status? Is it something that you perceive in your mind and work toward because you like the idea of living that image/status? If you felt you had attained the image/status you desire, would it matter if others thought you were a miserable failure? Or do you use their reactions to and opinions of you to determine where you're at image/status-wise?

...

It's about freedom.

Perhaps this is a 3 vs. 8 thing to some extent?

[unefille]

lol

He probably wasn't thinking at all about the image of a "loony homeless person". He most likely made that comment because the idea of having a nest egg didn't mesh with his idea of the type of thing you'd typically do. Perhaps he thinks you're more likely to do what you feel like doing regardless of the consequences, including spending everything you make

He thinks generally that I'm too idealistic and not pragmatic enough -- where we clash is not simply our attitudes toward money, but toward society (or even the notion of a 'social being' at all).

From my (and I thought everyone's?) perspective, if you're concerned with image/status, it's a character flaw that you're most likely unaware of. It's an unhealthy and unconscious insecurity, a negative and embarrassing thing that one would tend to be in denial about, even if it was the driving force behind of all of their decisions.

...

unefille, who defines the image? Who sets the status? Is it something that you perceive in your mind and work toward because you like the idea of living that image/status? If you felt you had attained the image/status you desire, would it matter if others thought you were a miserable failure? Or do you use their reactions to and opinions of you to determine where you're at image/status-wise?

I'm not sure why it would be an unhealthy obsession, or one you would be in denial about. To the extent you are, it's only because there are countervailing social norms that propagate the need to be 'less socially conscious'.

As for the who sets and defines the image - maybe an analogy would work best? If you're going to be an Opera singer, you listen to opera critics and disregard the opinions of 'lay people' or even, rock critics. Unless you want to be a renegade Opera singer, in which case, you listen to voices of the avant-garde critics. If you wanted to be an academic, you listen to you teachers during your formative years -- you listen to those you think have achieved what you want to achieve, or who have some authority on that matter -- you listen to those peers whom you respect on the basis of impersonal, not personal judgments (so it really doesn't matter if you think they're a prick). You pick your image, you pick your audience. You don't abdicate all power over your self-image to them; you use them as a form of feedback. Once you deem their voices irrelevant, you just stop listening.

The way you talk about it, it's almost as though you think there is only ONE form of status; ONE hierarchy -- something externally defined, externally rooted and immutable in form. I don't think that's true at all.

[unefille]

Perhaps this is a 3 vs. 8 thing to some extent?

I think it's only a 3 v. 8 thing to the extent that Beta status = EIE image-consciousness, which of course is only part (1/4) of it. idolatrie thinks much the way I do re: status v money, but she's less about 'feedback' from people to refine the image -- her notions of status are much more categorical and it's sort of like 'of course you want this in life; this is what is worthwhile/quality'.

[Joy]

He thinks generally that I'm too idealistic and not pragmatic enough -- where we clash is not simply our attitudes toward money, but toward society (or even the notion of a 'social being' at all).

Yes, that sounds pretty Gamma.

I'm not sure why it would be an unhealthy obsession, or one you would be in denial about. To the extent you are, it's only because there are countervailing social norms that propagate the need to be 'less socially conscious'.

Yeah, for "non-conformists" like a lot of the punk/goth/etc. types.

(You're saying it still comes down to social norms in the end... whether you're accepting them or rejecting them. I'm saying they're completely irrelevant.)

As for the who sets and defines the image - maybe an analogy would work best? If you're going to be an Opera singer, you listen to opera critics and disregard the opinions of 'lay people' or even, rock critics. Unless you want to be a renegade Opera singer, in which case, you listen to voices of the avant-garde critics. If you wanted to be an academic, you listen to you teachers during your formative years -- you listen to those you think have achieved what you want to achieve, or who have some authority on that matter -- you listen to those peers whom you respect on the basis of impersonal, not personal judgments (so it really doesn't matter if you think they're a prick). You pick your image, you pick your audience. You don't abdicate all power over your self-image to them; you use them as a form of feedback. Once you deem their voices irrelevant, you just stop listening.

Makes sense. The way you explain this has given me a much better understanding of this mindset, actually. Thank you.

The way you talk about it, it's almost as though you think there is only ONE form of status; ONE hierarchy -- something externally defined, externally rooted and immutable in form. I don't think that's true at all.

No, but image/status is image/status, regardless of what that image/status is.

I think it's only a 3 v. 8 thing to the extent that Beta status = EIE image-consciousness, which of course is only part (1/4) of it.

Makes sense.

idolatrie thinks much the way I do re: status v money, but she's less about 'feedback' from people to refine the image -- her notions of status are much more categorical and it's sort of like 'of course you want this in life; this is what is worthwhile/quality'.

I think that's how people generally feel about their quadra values.


Like I was saying earlier though, at this point I recognize that none of this can give a person the inner peace or fulfillment they're seeking from it, whatever "it" is to them (money, image/status, leisure, etc.). Those things are just a part of a role in our life. Whatever Socionics type, hair color, occupation, relationships, race, talents, personality, experiences, moral character, or social status we are/have, it's all just a part of that outer layer, that role we play out and to a large part invent for ourselves. Most people spend their lives trying to better define that role, the this puts them in a precarious situation because when they lose the thing they were defining themselves as, they've lost it all. Focusing on the identities of ourselves and others also causes conflict and a lot of pain where there need not be any.

There's nothing wrong with living our role... we're here for a reason, after all. However, it's very freeing to recognize that these things are only outer layers. At our inmost layer, none of that stuff matters. Including quadra values. People seek peace and fulfillment in the outer layers, but it can only be found by realizing how unimportant they are and becoming more aware of our inmost layer.

[unefille]

(You're saying it still comes down to social norms in the end... whether you're accepting them or rejecting them. I'm saying they're completely irrelevant.)

In which case, where does the shame/denial of being driven by 'status' come from? You either are or you aren't and if you are but unable to admit it (since it's a character flaw and all), what defines it as a character flaw?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

This social norms thing is a quadra issue. Is suspect you'll just have to, and it seems people don't like this expression, agree to disagree.

[Joy]

In which case, where does the shame/denial of being driven by 'status' come from? You either are or you aren't and if you are but unable to admit it (since it's a character flaw and all), what defines it as a character flaw?

I'm not saying that we (Gamma) are ashamed of being driven by status. I'm saying we aren't driven by status. From a Gamma perspective, we see people all around us who are driven by status, and it's seen in a very negative light. After all, it's not one of our quadra values, and we see the harm that can come from it (harm can come from any type or quadra, after all). I guess the mindset is just so foreign to us that we can't imagine why anyone would want to or think it's a good thing to think that way, hence the comment about how it seems like something people would generally be in denial about.

Like I said though, your explanations here have been very good, and I think I have a better understanding of it as a result. Additionally, I no longer feel the same way about this behavior in others (not as a result of this thread, but of other changes I've experienced recently). However, you had asked for a typical Gamma perspective. Here it is: Seeking image/status is a pointless behavior at best. Many Gammas actually see it as harmful and/or distasteful, and as a result come to think of it as a character flaw.

But we all already understand the concept of differing quadra values, so this shouldn't be shocking. I know there are many people who see Gamma's enterprising nature and social "exclusivity" as harmful, disgusting, a character flaw, etc.

[Joy]

This social norms thing is a quadra issue. I suspect you'll just have to, and it seems people don't like this expression, agree to disagree.

Some will disagree that it's related to quadra values I'm sure, but I agree with your post. No sense in trying to defend your quadra values against a different set of quadra values. They're just simply different.

[duality is cringe]

I'm sorry Delta quadra sucks so bad Jess.

[jessica129]

I'm sorry Delta quadra sucks so bad Jess.

It doesn't suck, certain people in there suck. Not you, no worries

[Creepy-]

My type? Forever unknown. I'm really honestly done guessing. It is what it is. Various people know why I'm questioning it.

Yeah, and if I were going by intertype relations on the forum, I would absolutely question my type [and quadra?] as well.

Do you know any Deltas outside of the forum, Jessica?

I don't care what you guys say, I still like delta =p

Me too, but I don't think the forum does Delta justice. [In order not to derail the discussion in this thread, I started a new one here.]

[jessica129]

Yeah, and if I were going by intertype relations on the forum, I would absolutely question my type [and quadra?] as well.

Do you know any Deltas outside of the forum, Jessica?

In real life, no. All of my friends / relationships have almost all consisted of Betas. I feel much more comfortable here. I feel like i have to filter myself and watch what i say in delta...it just doesn't feel right. Maybe you can't judge these things correctly over the internet but like you said, I'm questioning it based on the intertype relations.

[Creepy-]

In real life, no. All of my friends / relationships have almost all consisted of Betas. I feel much more comfortable here. I feel like i have to filter myself and watch what i say in delta...it just doesn't feel right. Maybe you can't judge these things correctly over the internet but like you said, I'm questioning it based on the intertype relations.

I am the same. I feel like I have to watch what I say but it is more because I can be kind of blunt, which I think could come off as "mean" at times, since there's no facial expression and/or mannerisms to accompany it. I worry that I'll be misinterpreted or worse offend someone or hurt their feelings without meaning to. I always attributed this to weak Fe on my part.

[dbmmama]

I am the same. I feel like I have to watch what I say but it is more because I can be kind of blunt, which I think could come off as "mean" at times, since there's no facial expression and/or mannerisms to accompany it. I worry that I'll be misinterpreted or worse offend someone or hurt their feelings without meaning to. I always attributed this to weak Fe on my part.

im kinda the same that way. irl, im pretty blunt myself and rarely smile or laugh, so i make all of these smiley faces and such online so i dont look so "mean" either. lol since i cant do it naturally irl, its much easier to type them online.

for whatever reason yesterday, i was on a laughing jag while in the chatbox with mercutio and strrrng and they must have thought i was such an idiot, yet they dont realize i almost never do that irl. hubby was watching me wondering wtf? "you never smile." lol that's why he's always trying to "crack this nut" and make me laugh. he's one of the funniest people alive. think will farrell. he even looks like him.

[calenwen]

Whoa! Fwiw, this is almost exactly my reaction to a group of Gammas (but along a different line)! I was just having a conversation with idolatrie about this yesterday, because some of our friends (prep school kids?) are Gamma and they were having a party and it was weirdly alienating. It's just becuase I'm looking at something I value (Se), but it's blocked in with Fi/Te and I kind of find it weirdly repulsive. For one thing, I find Fi/Te types SAY explicitly what Fe/Ti implies, so all of a sudden I'm surrounded by people who actually say things like 'well, status is quite important to me -- so blackberry or iphone?' and I'm staring at them like horns are growing out of their heads because surely it's too gauche to actually say that aloud? And also, I find when Betas are being 'show-offy' and 'pretentious', we do it as more of a reflection of our own personal awesomeness -- so we read the The New Yorker (which I do, actually, as I do attend a lot of cocktail parties) and we assume it shows that we belong to an echelon of people who have like, the awesomest/most sophisticated taste etc. Whilst Gammas say it in a more 'this is the establishment' sort of sense. There's a lot more emphasis on MONEY (esp. old money), attending certain schools (legacies, omg), going to certain specific places -- it's so much more 'cliquish' and 'established' -- and a lot of it is personal connections -- who you know/your family knows -- who you have on call -- what connections you can leverage etc. It's all so much more serious, established and incontrovertible.

...Say what? Granted, almost all of my interactions with other gammas have been rather informal, but I've never seen any of the aforementioned attitudes displayed.... Oh, except by this one ENTj girl, but I always thought that was because she was rich and spoiled.

You guys sure do fight a lot.Cmon. Kiss n makeup.

It never ceases to amaze me how much people argue in this forum, haha. It's ridiculous.

[redbaron]

im kinda the same that way. irl, im pretty blunt myself and rarely smile or laugh, so i make all of these smiley faces and such online so i dont look so "mean" either. lol since i cant do it naturally irl, its much easier to type them online.

for whatever reason yesterday, i was on a laughing jag while in the chatbox with mercutio and strrrng and they must have thought i was such an idiot, yet they dont realize i almost never do that irl. hubby was watching me wondering wtf? "you never smile." lol that's why he's always trying to "crack this nut" and make me laugh. he's one of the funniest people alive. think will farrell. he even looks like him.

REALLY? this surprises me. okay, maybe you're SLE>EIE