Beta and It Hurts So Good

[silverchris9]

Surprisingly not NSWF.

I have a theory about the beta quadra (and it also applies to the delta quadra, but don't tell them). I think that the dual-seeking and polr functions of betas are actually very similar (actually, you find this in that aspectonics stuff: both Ni and Fi are interior fields, both Se and Te are exterior objects, etc.)

Examples:
IEIs don't like to be forced to pay attention to the "real world," in a Te way. Yet they think it's wonderful in an Se way.
SLEs don't like their emotions/interior state "seen through", or or for their feelings/interior state to be assumed in an Fi way. Yet they think it's wonderful in an Ni way. (the inspiration for this was this thread.

Because both the polr and the DS of betas are concerned with similar things, they can be externally similar (another reason for dual/conflictor confusion), but the nuances between the two are so different that the dual-seeking functions makes a normally-unpleasant experience, while still perhaps out-of-the-ordinary, wonderful instead of terrible.

I think this applies to the other two types, but I haven't figured out how yet. But there's probably a similarity between Fe and Ne and between Ti and Si too.

So, in conclusion, betas like things that are "painful" in one way but that "hurt so good" in another. The end. (Yeah, so that was a strained metaphor, but when I was thinking about this, that metaphor popped into my head, and I thought it was funny, so I stuck with it even after it was clear that it didn't really work.)

[Blaze]

i'm followingyou until you get to your metaphor.

[Suz]

Surprisingly not NSWF.

I have a theory about the beta quadra (and it also applies to the delta quadra, but don't tell them). I think that the dual-seeking and polr functions of betas are actually very similar (actually, you find this in that aspectonics stuff: both Ni and Fi are interior fields, both Se and Te are exterior objects, etc.)

Examples:
IEIs don't like to be forced to pay attention to the "real world," in a Te way. Yet they think it's wonderful in an Se way.
SLEs don't like their emotions/interior state "seen through", or or for their feelings/interior state to be assumed in an Fi way. Yet they think it's wonderful in an Ni way. (the inspiration for this was this thread.

I think i know what you mean by the Te way not being pleasant but the Se way being great for the IEI example. And I agree.

But can you elaborate what you mean by the Fi way vs the Ni way to assume SLE's feelings/interior state?

[silverchris9]

But can you elaborate what you mean by the Fi way vs the Ni way to assume SLE's feelings/interior state?

Well... the core of it is the idea that Fi and Ni are both about nonphysical relationships between things. So, Fi and Ni are both theoretically capable of addressing things like relationships, the feelings between two different things, etc. But the way I think it works in practice is that Fi is about knowing how relationships go, right? So, an Fi person might run into an SLE and sort of assume that they have a certain interior state (I've been told that it's more about sentiments like offended or something rather than emotions, but that's two sides of the same coin to me) because they understand how relationships work in general (just like Ti makes rules about how motion works in general, a la F=ma, universal gravitation, etc.) regardless of what external markers of emotion (Fe) the SLE is expressing at the time. This would probably piss the SLE off, like wth, I'm not offended, if I was offended, I would tell you I'm offended, but don't assume I'm offended with your weird knowledge of relationships. On the other hand, Ni would do something similar (see through a facade like in JWC3s topic), but in a way that would be pleasant for an SLE due to a subtle difference in emphasis and expression. To return to the early scenario, Ni might also see that the SLE is upset and isn't acting like he or she's upset but would communicate that knowledge in a way that isn't unpleasant. Ni also sort of "assumes" something about the nonphysical relationships but this time it's pleasant rather than unpleasant. That's probably a pretty bad description, but does it make any more sense?

fwiw, in my (admittedly limited) experience of LSEs, they don't like it when ANYTHING internal about them is assumed. So it might not be a perfect correlation. *shrug*

That might be true... but my thought is that it wouldn't feel like something is "assumed," just... like if an EII just knew that the LSE was offended by a rude comment and without them having to make a big Fe show of emotion about it, the EII just did something about it (whether that would be to do something for the LSE or do something to the person who offended him/her), an LSE would like that, wouldn't they? I could be off here...

EDIT:

To be a little clearer on the Ni side, Ni might predict how someone will feel. Like, there's this kid who asks questions in a class I'm in all the time, and the way he phrases them always pisses my professor off to no end (Prof's probably ILI). Well, I know how that interaction is going to play out before it even happens. If my prof were an SLE, there could presumably be a situation in which s/he would appreciate me know how s/he'll react to a given stimulus. Same deal, same sort of assuming something internal about a person as Fi, just in a way that works for SLEs.

[JWC3]

I'm not entirely sure Fi works the way you are assuming it does. Could you perhaps explain it in relevance to what your saying more throughly?

I.E. I don't understand yet, so I am hesitant to accept what your saying.

[silverchris9]

Well, tbh, it's somewhat predicated on an idea of Fi I was forced to abandon, but let's see if it still holds:

Fi is about internal fields, which I interpret as immaterial relationships. I think that Fi would make assumptions about an SLEs relationship to another person, like "you were offended by that person," or maybe even, "you're attracted to that person." This would take the form of "seeing through" the SLEs external emotional expression (Fe), since Fi is about how relationships always work. I think of Fi like a counterpoint to Ti; just as Ti is associated with explicit formulas about how motion works (F=ma, universal gravitation), allowing for the difficulty in explaining human actions, Fi makes generalized assumptions about how relationships work. So my thought was that Fi would use that generalized assumption to guess something about the SLE that would be unpleasant. But I could be way off here? It just kinda came to me while I was writing out my function descriptions so I decided to post. *shrug*

[Suz]

so let me see if I got this straight:

Fi = assumes how SLE is feeling based on how relationships usually work.

Ni = infers how SLE is feeling based on patterns and observations made in the past and present, and predicting on that basis how SLE is going to feel in the future based on that.

If so, I can see how Ni would be more pleasant, because SLE can be tough to read and Ni would likely be more accurate.

Good?