Alpha/Gamma Questions

[silverchris9]

Can anyone give me details on how alpha/gamma conflicting relationships play out? I think it would be helpful for me in sharpening my understanding of differences between alpha and gamma NTs (I'm pretty good on SFs). Also, analysis of gamma Te and alpha Ne (especially in ILIs and LIIs) would be extremely helpful. Thanks!

[Wynch]

Between my Gamma NT mother and I our relationship tends to play out alright. The problem lies in discussing things and assuming the other hasn't considered our perspective. We end up in the circular discussion where we will have the same opinion on things, but we'll annoy the hell out of each other explaining a reasoning that we've both addressed in a secondary way to our natural approach.

With Gamma SFs there seems to be an underlying lack of commonality. I'm more or less living with an SEE right now and we get along relatively well, but we both have a mutual understanding that we think the other is entirely ridiculous.

[Azeroffs]

I'm not sure that I know any SEIs and the ones I suspect of being SEI I've never spent enough time around them to know what the relation is like. But, this is what I think.

First, NTs view SFs as nonthinking airheads.
SFs view NTs as social retards.

gamma NTs see alpha SFs as people unable to do anything effectively. They take the wrong approach to everything and are a waste of time.
alpha SFs see gamma NTs as boring and emotionally hostile. They have no idea how to have a good time.
alpha NTs see gamma SFs as too personally invasive and politically correct. They are too unoriginal and uninteresting.
gamma SFs see alpha NTs as weird and awkward. They are too oblivious to social intricacies.

[Azeroffs]

I know some ESEs. One of them I really respect as person, but considering how much we talk, I can't seem to get fully comfortable with her. She's really nice, but lacks depth. I admire the way she's always there for all her friends and is so giving, but as I said, I can't seem to move beyond superficial interaction.

Another ESE just gets on my nerves with how shallow her personality is, and how she smiles at EVERYthing.

alpha NTs I've met have been admirably intelligent, but really obnoxious and sometimes annoying.

[Creepy-male]

First, NTs view SFs as nonthinking airheads.
SFs view NTs as social retards.

gamma NTs see alpha SFs as people unable to do anything effectively. They take the wrong approach to everything and are a waste of time.
alpha SFs see gamma NTs as boring and emotionally hostile. They have no idea how to have a good time.
alpha NTs see gamma SFs as too personally invasive and politically correct. They are too unoriginal and uninteresting.
gamma SFs see alpha NTs as weird and awkward. They are too oblivious to social intricacies.

Interesting. How would you apply this to intra-quadra views?

[MatthewZ]

I generally find Gamma SFs to be too concerned about "should" and "should not," while I personally find matters in such areas to be relative and don't appreciate the feeling of obligation some of them try to press on me. They seem highly concerned about making sure people keep to morality and can find me occasionally selfish and amoral. The Gamma SFs I know also seem highly inclined to playing the blame game and seem too myopic to see beyond luck and chance, berating people for making the best call that can in uncertain situations if that call doesn't get a desirable outcome. (When it comes to flipping coins, I've even seen "You should have picked tails" or the even more annoying "I told you to pick tails.")

Of course, that's just my experience with Gamma SFs and I do not by any means expect what I've described above to be fully type-related.

Gamma NTs can be interesting. Conveniently, we'll often reach similar solutions (although I see this moreso between myself and LIEs than myself and ILIs) but through different approaches. At worst, this creates a giant semantic battle over who is more right. At best, it allows for a more thorough examination of problems through all angles and can allow for a very complementary thinking process between us and allows our trains of thought to double-check the other's.

Alpha SFs are also a curious case. I do like to be a friendly person and my Alpha SF friends are usually always open for hugs and other small little comforting acts. (An ESI I know, by contrast, always tries to get herself out of such things. Why do I find my Gamma friends so hug-averse?) Often smiling to brighten up the day. I've met a few of them that are complete airheads (of course, not type related necessarily) and I can't ever maintain much of a conversation without having to repeat all of the horrible jokes I try to weave into my speech, effectively reducing their comic value to nothing.

I find Alpha NTs to usually be something of competition. When it comes to mutual friends between myself and other Alpha NTs, many of the mutual friends choose a preference for one of us because we usually provide similar things in conversation and relationships, making the other essentially obsolete in some cases. Someone usually ends up as second fiddle. My best Alpha NT friends have completely different areas of interest, removing any threatening aspect and allowing us to share without feeling the need to be ahead of the other.

[717495]

gamma NTs see alpha SFs as people unable to do anything effectively. They take the wrong approach to everything and are a waste of time.

I agree with this part for a lot of Gamma NTs, especially LIEs attitude toward IEIs and SEIs.

gamma SFs see alpha NTs as weird and awkward. They are too oblivious to social intricacies.

But "oblivious to social intricacies?" Sounds like Fe PoLR. I would not say that ILEs are oblivious to social intricacies, but that they do have Fe Ha, which is a more or less expressed weakness, or that anyone who saw social intricacies as a significant policy would really see LIIs as a problem, since their Fe seeking stands out in tandem to a Ti mindset. Ti mindset is a different method working toward what Fe is working toward. NT is NT. There are no others less suited for social intricacies. Fe HA in ILE is the closest you're going to get to being good at picking up on them from my experience. LIEs are second best. Now there is also the definition of "social intricacy" that I'm unclear about you expressing, but I do have a general idea of the two combined terms.

I would see importances of the relation between Gamma SF and Alpha NT as something different. I think user sarinana has made a few good relational points about Alpha NTs, many that I agree with, so it's always good to hear from these people who attend the forum who are these types.

[Aiss]

ILI - ESE: we find each other lacking. My mother (ESE) sees me as unpleasant, hostile and "not normal". I'm annoyed by her inability to answer a simple question without relating the whole boring and redundant story. If something happened earlier, it must be related. Total pre-planning and doing everything sequentially describe her very well. Especially annoying since I know she is intelligent. In socionics terms, we seem more bothered by each other's PoLR than our own being attacked.

ILI - SEI: this one seems asymmetric to me. I'm good friends with a SEI (possibly H-SEI), but I seem to both offer and attack more in this relationship. At times I get impatient and drive her away, while she never does this to me. I think it makes me the clingy introvert in this relation, although I'm never consciously acting so.

(I'm pretty sure at this point that I'm an ILI brought up by alphas.)

[Azeroffs]

But "oblivious to social intricacies?" Sounds like Fe PoLR. I would not say that ILEs are oblivious to social intricacies, but that they do have Fe Ha, which is a more or less expressed weakness, or that anyone who saw social intricacies as a significant policy would really see LIIs as a problem, since their Fe seeking stands out in tandem to a Ti mindset. Ti mindset is a different method working toward what Fe is working toward. NT is NT. There are no others less suited for social intricacies. Fe HA in ILE is the closest you're going to get to being good at picking up on them from my experience. LIEs are second best. Now there is also the definition of "social intricacy" that I'm unclear about you expressing, but I do have a general idea of the two combined terms.

"social intricacies" is too broad, so you are correct. All NTs are relatively unaware of "social intricacies" in one way or another. What I meant was that alpha NTs are seen as being unaware of how to behave properly or correctly. Whats right and whats wrong. You could argue that it is the same for gamma NTs, but here is where the semantics are off. Gamma NTs are unaware of how to act with the atmosphere or group. Alpha NTs are unaware of the individual interplay or personal affectation. Things like attraction, edicate, etc. Alpha NTs are unaware of the undercurrent in social interaction. That may be a better way of describing it. The internal framework of social interaction. That's most likely better since it implies static SF.

I would see importances of the relation between Gamma SF and Alpha NT as something different. I think user sarinana has made a few good relational points about Alpha NTs, many that I agree with, so it's always good to hear from these people who attend the forum who are these types.

Yeah, I'd much rather hear what a gamma SF has to say.

[Azeroffs]

Interesting. How would you apply this to intra-quadra views?

I'm not sure what you mean. Like alpha vs gamma as a whole? or alpha NT vs SF and gamma NT vs SF?

The problem with conflictors is that they both have something to teach the other, but their egos literally get in the way. Acting like your conflictor means having to let go of everything you hold most important. With duality it's like teaching an empty slate. All NTs have the same problems, but are most receptive to their quadra values because there is no contradiction. We see duals and activators in awe because they navigate reality in a way that would have never been thoroughly considered or imaginable. We know of our problems in our superego and we like/are more comfortable behaving in a way that contradicts it.

[Creepy-male]

I'm not sure what you mean. Like alpha vs gamma as a whole? or alpha NT vs SF and gamma NT vs SF?

Like, how Alpha NTs view Alpha SFs, vice-versa; and then for within Gamma too.

[Brilliand]

But "oblivious to social intricacies?" Sounds like Fe PoLR.

What about "social intricacies" as in "social norms" - ways to treat people enforced by "should"? Alphas like to do what makes others feel good, but not with any specific right way to behave. Gammas are more likely to enforce a particular way of treating people with a moral "should," which could also be called a "social intricacy."

[Azeroffs]

Like, how Alpha NTs view Alpha SFs, vice-versa; and then for within Gamma too.

Then it's basically like I said. At a glance, they view each other the same, but the difference is receptiveness. This is why we can be attracted to conflictors or walk by duals at first.

I think mostly duals/activators view each other either as somewhat of a mystery because of their difference or as someone extremely familiar for the same reason. They don't know what to think of each other because their behavior is outside of their consideration or they do because they've met their dual/activator before and realize how awesome they are. So they just view each other as mysteries.

Edit: well, when they get to know each other better, they just see each other as amazing people for exactly who they are. Alpha NTs see Alpha SFs as fun enjoyable people, and SFs see the NTs as highly intelligent and interesting. Gamma NTs see the SFs as very admirable and strong hearted, and the SFs see NTs as highly effective and knowledgeable.

[Azeroffs]

What about "social intricacies" as in "social norms" - ways to treat people enforced by "should"? Alphas like to do what makes others feel good, but not with any specific right way to behave. Gammas are more likely to enforce a particular way of treating people with a moral "should," which could also be called a "social intricacy."

I don't like "social norms" because I view alpha SF behavior as a social norm as well. 'Social norms' is just as broad and vague as 'social intricacies' is. I think alpha NTs will view gamma SF behavior as too morally correct, but I know gamma SFs who aren't exactly the most ethical people in the world. So moral unenforced behavior might be closer, but still not quite what gamma SFs would think of alpha NTs.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Luke]

the usual SEE "press it to the bottom" - I don't know the expression in English, but it means to drive with full speed.

"Pedal to the metal" would be apt.

Yeah I can't stand unnecessary loudness most of the time, but it can be funny when the attitude is relaxed.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

and the usual SEE "press it to the bottom" - I don't know the expression in English, but it means to drive with full speed.

I think of "floor it." I've also heard "pedal to the metal" but not as often... could be regional.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-female]

First, NTs view SFs as nonthinking airheads.

I don't think this is exactly true, but I figured out a way your generalization works. It is in the way a person views a rhythm or a foreign way of taking in information. I can see an ENTj observing an ISFp's way of taking in information and writing them off, because perhaps the Ip general passivity + Si acquiescence to the surrounding environment + Fe emotional receptivity/adaption makes them seem oblivious to a larger intellectual context. To me, Si is not very "airheadish" at all. It has a very concrete aspect, and Ni seems out of nowhere and foolish. I think Si has to do with how the reactions and interplay of people and the environment can be directly correlated to some core attributes of people/things, for lack of a better phrase (but that almost seems to vague, I'm working on it)..it's just with Alpha SFs, they do more of the former since that is Si, and the latter is Ne, and you can see how they compliment each other. I think perhaps Alpha SFs might seem vague or unable to verbalize the Ne side of things, even though they are adept at tracking and measuring and experiencing Si. I tend to collect data from my environment largely by feel. Just experiencing it can make things click into place a lot more quickly than one condensed, vague statement that seems out of nowhere (although those have their moments). Of course, if you were oblivious/bad at seeing this "by feel" observation, you might think the person was airhead-ish.

(Btw, I'm a little confused at "external dynamics of fields" vs "introverted sensing", doesn't external oppose introverted or am I missing something? I was worried about my POV being built on an incorrect definition of Si)

Now I have to go on and talk about how Socionics becomes a bit irrelevant, so feel free to ignore this if you wish. I thought that perhaps my reaction to you was a bit conflictor-ish, because I instantly took issue with your statement. But once I thought it out in my plodding way (think a lot of dead ends and issues with definitions, comparing with experience, thinking of playouts), it actually works in a large way. And also, I think your intention is correctly in the realm of Socionics, and then I remember that that is the point of this board. So I'm glad that my issue then becomes a bit with Socionics, instead of you.

But then my issue becomes, how useful is Socionics, if one insists (like they should to keep logical consistancy and not add other variables thus contaminating the data) that it stays within the realm it describes? Wasn't I able to understand your point in some degree, even get something meaningful out of your thoughts, in spite of this awkward way of doing it? I mean, if one is making generalizations correlating to Socionics, I don't think people should make them about intelligence, as if intelligence is such a fixed thing. Or if you want to be logically coherant, you should separate your definition of Socionics intelligence vs intelligence in people, because I believe that divide does exist. And it makes me view the people who are determined to stick within the realm of Socionics without really attempting to understand the actual process behind another person's thoughts and instead using it for very vague definitions that categorize people into stupid categories like social retards and airheads as very SHALLOW. Please stop throwing that around for the love of pete. Those phrases make me raise my hackles involuntarily.

I've been trying to figure out a good way to put this and Vero's really good summary kept coming to mind, so I'm going to write that instead, because it's a coherant explanation for my thoughts. "Every type has a logic of their own, which is kind of the fault of calling T types logical. An Alpha SF isn't any less logical in their own way. It just isn't the same thing as my external structured logic. It's like when people learn about different kinds of intelligence. Same concept. And I think the best people to describe a function are the people who experience it. Like what the fuck is an Alpha NT doing defining Se and Fi as an ego experience???" I really fucking love Vero. And you could say that omgz it's duality in action and Socionics is verified blah blah. But what I mean is, anyone could say at first glance that so and so is airheaded, or arrogant, or socially retarded, or any of that stuff. But what is the use of Socionics if you stay on the surface like that? I'm not going to want to be around someone who I think is a bad person, even if they are a dual and a blank slate communication wise. And I think it would be worth it to go through the drama of dropping the ego if a conflictor had a wise thing to communicate.

SFs view NTs as social retards.

Ok so I guess what I want to say is that I hate this and am not sure exactly what you are trying to say, so perhaps you could elaborate, because I don't want to unecessarily attack you, it isn't my intention. But social retardation does not factor into my evaluations or like/dislike of a person, or even my communication with them. I have known all kinds of different types to be social retards. I tend to think of communication errors or misunderstandings factor more into what I think of Gamma NTs. I hardly ever make a consideration on whether to be around or spend time with a person based on whether or not they are a social retard, because my relationships aren't based on the social realm.

alpha SFs see gamma NTs as boring and emotionally hostile. They have no idea how to have a good time.

I think perhaps I have perceived some Gamma NTs as boring, but other times I have regarded their thoughts with respect and interest, so I'm not exactly sure about this. And I would like to add that my motivations are not "to have a good time". I mean what the heck does this mean anyway? Are you saying that other types want to go around being unhappy or something? I want to have meaningful, insightful exchanges with people and learn about things and blah blah, my lyfe goalz, but it's like, so what? I want to do what I want. Don't you want to do what you want? If you were, doesn't that make you happy? Then what about that is "bad", or where is the contrast for what is "good"? Or "good" for you? Or content? Or what? It's still your choice. Sometimes it's good at sometimes it isn't.. but can't you say that for everyone? wtf?? Don't be content to use a theoretical construct to go no deeper than saying "oh, so and so wants a good time out of life".

Alpha NTs see Alpha SFs as fun enjoyable people, and SFs see the NTs as highly intelligent and interesting.

No, I find the NTs to be intelligent and interesting in a different way than I, but I don't discount my own intelligence in other realms, even if it follows a less concrete structure, and even if I am not able to verbalize it well at times, and I would write off anyone who simply discounted me as a fun enjoyable person, because my function in life as a person isn't someone else's social balm, and I wish Socionics didn't seem to communicate this.

[Mediator Kam]

No, I find the NTs to be intelligent and interesting in a different way than I, but I don't discount my own intelligence in other realms, even if it follows a less concrete structure, and even if I am not able to verbalize it well at times, and I would write off anyone who simply discounted me as a fun enjoyable person, because my function in life as a person isn't someone else's social balm, and I wish Socionics didn't seem to communicate this.

I like to talk about how smart I am like any other person, but being a fun enjoyable, sensitive person is probably the easiest role Alpha SFs fulfill in life.

[Creepy-female]

I like to talk about how smart I am like any other person, but being a fun enjoyable, sensitive person is probably the easiest role Alpha SFs fulfill in life.

No it's not the easiest, it's actually the worst. I don't want to have to speak about how smart I am, or in any way sound pompous. But the fact is is that people are coming from alternative points of intelligence. And those points of intelligence should be attempted to be understood extensively as equals. I believe, for example, that painting NTs as social retards is a pretty broad brush. I try hard not to group people in such categories, and even if I get mad at them I don't discount their opinion as worthless. I disagree with Azeroffs, but I think he's smart, and insightful in ways, and hope he's able to explain himself, and even if he doesn't, I get the inkling that there's perhaps something wrong with my approach and inconsistencies that's hard for me to place when I get into a reaction. But that doesn't mean I'm going to laugh and become suddenly enjoyable because that's easier, because it isn't easier.

On a general note I'm tired of scanning the descriptions and what people write/come up with for useful material and only see this excruciatingly banal and overused social butterfly bullshit. If people are so confident at slapping such generalizations on types then they should at least have the obligation to explain themselves.

[Mediator Kam]

It may not be the easiest, i mis-stated that. But I enjoy it the most. I wish I could be more of a social butterfly and more of a mental one too.

[Creepy-female]

It may not be the easiest, i mis-stated that. But I enjoy it the most. I wish I could be more of a social butterfly and more of a mental one too.

Haha, a mental butterfly. That's cool if you like it and stuff. I've wondered if our natural talents dictate our dislikes, or if we're always prone to going towards what we can't have. Perhaps you have a point in that a butterfly conveys a fluidity of sorts. Gah idk. I just don't find that stuff the easiest, and am not sure if I enjoy it the most either. Being able to land lightly on someone's hand, drink sugar water, then disappear back into the air might initiate a respect of sorts, but butterflies just aren't there when the shit goes down, you know?

[Mediator Kam]

Dolphin, I have had an epiphany, but it will derail the thread. To PM!

[Azeroffs]

I don't think this is exactly true, but I figured out a way your generalization works. It is in the way a person views a rhythm or a foreign way of taking in information. I can see an ENTj observing an ISFp's way of taking in information and writing them off, because perhaps the Ip general passivity + Si acquiescence to the surrounding environment + Fe emotional receptivity/adaption makes them seem oblivious to a larger intellectual context. To me, Si is not very "airheadish" at all. It has a very concrete aspect, and Ni seems out of nowhere and foolish. I think Si has to do with how the reactions and interplay of people and the environment can be directly correlated to some core attributes of people/things, for lack of a better phrase (but that almost seems to vague, I'm working on it)..it's just with Alpha SFs, they do more of the former since that is Si, and the latter is Ne, and you can see how they compliment each other. I think perhaps Alpha SFs might seem vague or unable to verbalize the Ne side of things, even though they are adept at tracking and measuring and experiencing Si. I tend to collect data from my environment largely by feel. Just experiencing it can make things click into place a lot more quickly than one condensed, vague statement that seems out of nowhere (although those have their moments). Of course, if you were oblivious/bad at seeing this "by feel" observation, you might think the person was airhead-ish.

You're looking at it too technically, and making it more complex than I meant it to be which is ironic.

What I meant was that NTs typically look at things in very analytical way. Always asking questions about how things work in a general way. In contrast, SFs typically 'live life'. They approach the world by being involved in it rather than always asking questions.

As a result, NTs take a more intellectual approach to life. SFs take a more involved approach to life. NTs then view SFs as people who don't really think because of the extent to which they think of things. SFs see NTs as people who don't know how to react to the world and people because they aren't as involved as SFs are.

(Btw, I'm a little confused at "external dynamics of fields" vs "introverted sensing", doesn't external oppose introverted or am I missing something? I was worried about my POV being built on an incorrect definition of Si)

External means quantifiable or measurable.

Now I have to go on and talk about how Socionics becomes a bit irrelevant, so feel free to ignore this if you wish. I thought that perhaps my reaction to you was a bit conflictor-ish, because I instantly took issue with your statement. But once I thought it out in my plodding way (think a lot of dead ends and issues with definitions, comparing with experience, thinking of playouts), it actually works in a large way. And also, I think your intention is correctly in the realm of Socionics, and then I remember that that is the point of this board. So I'm glad that my issue then becomes a bit with Socionics, instead of you.

Yes, it is a very generalized system. Nothing should be taken absolutely.

But then my issue becomes, how useful is Socionics, if one insists (like they should to keep logical consistancy and not add other variables thus contaminating the data) that it stays within the realm it describes? Wasn't I able to understand your point in some degree, even get something meaningful out of your thoughts, in spite of this awkward way of doing it? I mean, if one is making generalizations correlating to Socionics, I don't think people should make them about intelligence, as if intelligence is such a fixed thing. Or if you want to be logically coherant, you should separate your definition of Socionics intelligence vs intelligence in people, because I believe that divide does exist. And it makes me view the people who are determined to stick within the realm of Socionics without really attempting to understand the actual process behind another person's thoughts and instead using it for very vague definitions that categorize people into stupid categories like social retards and airheads as very SHALLOW. Please stop throwing that around for the love of pete. Those phrases make me raise my hackles involuntarily.

I didn't say anything about intelligence. When I describe someone as nonthinking, I mean just that. That it no way means that they aren't smart or intelligent. Just that they don't think. Also, to clarify, not all or even most SFs don't think. Just that, commonly, NTs will view them that way mostly in the case of conflictors or superegos. "If they did think, they would understand" might be a common interpretation.

I've been trying to figure out a good way to put this and Vero's really good summary kept coming to mind, so I'm going to write that instead, because it's a coherant explanation for my thoughts. "Every type has a logic of their own, which is kind of the fault of calling T types logical. An Alpha SF isn't any less logical in their own way. It just isn't the same thing as my external structured logic. It's like when people learn about different kinds of intelligence. Same concept. And I think the best people to describe a function are the people who experience it. Like what the fuck is an Alpha NT doing defining Se and Fi as an ego experience???" I really fucking love Vero. And you could say that omgz it's duality in action and Socionics is verified blah blah. But what I mean is, anyone could say at first glance that so and so is airheaded, or arrogant, or socially retarded, or any of that stuff. But what is the use of Socionics if you stay on the surface like that? I'm not going to want to be around someone who I think is a bad person, even if they are a dual and a blank slate communication wise. And I think it would be worth it to go through the drama of dropping the ego if a conflictor had a wise thing to communicate.

Logic is the wrong term. Each type has their own interpretational abilities or information metabolism with their own strengths and weaknesses. I agree that it is best to have each type describe their own ego, but we don't have that kind of diversity. What I'm talking about isn't just at surface level. Often it becomes much more visible at deeper levels. The point is that you likely won't think that your dual is a bad person. Dropping your ego isn't a walk through the park. Your ego is your everything. Dropping your ego gives you the feeling of helplessness weakness and inability. That's not to say you can't gain from conflict interaction. Just that priorities and life focuses are often directly contradicting meaning that there will be a lot of misunderstanding.

Ok so I guess what I want to say is that I hate this and am not sure exactly what you are trying to say, so perhaps you could elaborate, because I don't want to unecessarily attack you, it isn't my intention. But social retardation does not factor into my evaluations or like/dislike of a person, or even my communication with them. I have known all kinds of different types to be social retards. I tend to think of communication errors or misunderstandings factor more into what I think of Gamma NTs. I hardly ever make a consideration on whether to be around or spend time with a person based on whether or not they are a social retard, because my relationships aren't based on the social realm.

By socially retarded, I mean they don't realize how to interact with you, and your relationships are the social realm, so I'm not even sure you know what your saying.

I think perhaps I have perceived some Gamma NTs as boring, but other times I have regarded their thoughts with respect and interest, so I'm not exactly sure about this. And I would like to add that my motivations are not "to have a good time". I mean what the heck does this mean anyway? Are you saying that other types want to go around being unhappy or something?

Gamma NTs tend to focus their life is such a way that they disregard "the simple things." Most everything is about doing something worthwhile. Sure we have fun too, just as you work and whatever, but it's all about priorities and values. What do you really care about?

I want to have meaningful, insightful exchanges with people and learn about things and blah blah, my lyfe goalz, but it's like, so what? I want to do what I want. Don't you want to do what you want? If you were, doesn't that make you happy? Then what about that is "bad", or where is the contrast for what is "good"? Or "good" for you? Or content? Or what? It's still your choice. Sometimes it's good at sometimes it isn't.. but can't you say that for everyone? wtf?? Don't be content to use a theoretical construct to go no deeper than saying "oh, so and so wants a good time out of life".

"Having a good time" is too vague, youre right, but life goals are "what I want." That's the best way I can describe the conflict between alpha SF and gamma NT. I find that the common definition of what is 'fun' to be pointless and unnecessary for the most part especially the center focus of life.

No, I find the NTs to be intelligent and interesting in a different way than I, but I don't discount my own intelligence in other realms, even if it follows a less concrete structure, and even if I am not able to verbalize it well at times, and I would write off anyone who simply discounted me as a fun enjoyable person, because my function in life as a person isn't someone else's social balm, and I wish Socionics didn't seem to communicate this.

When you say "intelligent in a different way than I" then that means you understand exactly what I mean, and you are taking beyond that for no good reason because I was not making any implications. I mean intelligent in the common idea of what it means to be intelligent. Again, I didn't say that alpha SFs are unintelligent. They just aren't focused on things which show the common idea of what intelligence is.

This whole thing has been very confusing, and I won't be surprised if there was some misunderstanding.

[Azeroffs]

I believe, for example, that painting NTs as social retards is a pretty broad brush.

I wonder how many NTs would not consider themselves more socially retarded than your average person. I'm not doubting that there are some, but the trend is there I'm sure.

[Creepy-female]

You're looking at it too technically, and making it more complex than I meant it to be which is ironic.

What I meant was that NTs typically look at things in very analytical way. Always asking questions about how things work in a general way. In contrast, SFs typically 'live life'. They approach the world by being involved in it rather than always asking questions.

As a result, NTs take a more intellectual approach to life. SFs take a more involved approach to life. NTs then view SFs as people who don't really think because of the extent to which they think of things. SFs see NTs as people who don't know how to react to the world and people because they aren't as involved as SFs are.

No they don't. SFs taken in information in a different way than NTs, but they are not incapable of leading analytical lives if they so choose. For myself, the sheer tangible weight of "living life" and firsthand experience is such that I constantly have to analyse and categorize it not to go mad. Sensations in and of themselves are useless. It is not enough to react to the world, or simply be involved. One must know for what they are doing things and why, and be willing to step back and see the patterns actions take.

External means quantifiable or measurable.

Yes, so is Si is an quantifiable, measurable, and introverted function is my question. I wasn't sure whether or not those terms were opposing or what their relation was to one another.

I didn't say anything about intelligence. When I describe someone as nonthinking, I mean just that. That it no way means that they aren't smart or intelligent. Just that they don't think. Also, to clarify, not all or even most SFs don't think. Just that, commonly, NTs will view them that way mostly in the case of conflictors or superegos. "If they did think, they would understand" might be a common interpretation.

I suppose if one is first and foremost adept at assessing and reacting to their environment by physical means, one might perhaps generalize them as nonthinking, but I don't really like that. I think you overlook the extent to which SFs will go intellectually to make sense of and clarify their observations and beliefs, even to that it will be more apparent than anything else about them.

Logic is the wrong term. Each type has their own interpretational abilities or information metabolism with their own strengths and weaknesses. I agree that it is best to have each type describe their own ego, but we don't have that kind of diversity.

Logic is a great term. And just because we don't have diversity, doesn't mean it's right to act in any other way than in the interest of developing that diversity. It's not a very just system that is represented in reality by a few, but goes by the title The 16 Types.

What I'm talking about isn't just at surface level. Often it becomes much more visible at deeper levels. The point is that you likely won't think that your dual is a bad person.

Yes you will. Information metabolism doesn't bias you as much to simply discarding your character judgements of people. Like JWC3 said, it's very possible to dislike your duals. That's not a proper quality on which to evaluate relations when you take into account the other variables besides Socionics.

Dropping your ego isn't a walk through the park. Your ego is your everything. Dropping your ego gives you the feeling of helplessness weakness and inability. That's not to say you can't gain from conflict interaction. Just that priorities and life focuses are often directly contradicting meaning that there will be a lot of misunderstanding.

Priorities and life focuses aren't solely or even generally dictated by type, and thus cannot be applied as such.

By socially retarded, I mean they don't realize how to interact with you, and your relationships are the social realm, so I'm not even sure you know what your saying.

What I meant by that is I evaluate my relationships on a more personal basis, but if by social you meant purely relations as they are seen in humans, I don't see NTs as social retards. They can navigate the social realm in their own way, and it may be clunky in some ways, but it's very intelligent in others. They can be adaptive, they can be wise and mature and great in the social realm, relating to humans, and dealing with emotions. I think your dichotomy there is useless because you're assuming somehow that types can't adapt to their environment or and their true intentions won't be the ultimate signpost or something.

Gamma NTs tend to focus their life is such a way that they disregard "the simple things." Most everything is about doing something worthwhile. Sure we have fun too, just as you work and whatever, but it's all about priorities and values. What do you really care about?

Now you are projecting if you think that Alpha SFs are all about "the simple things", or that they're all about having fun. Characterizing your priorities as "worthwhile" ignores the fact that a Alpha SF could be meeting all your personal ideas of what "worthwhile" is, thus making you think they are not Alpha SF. Socionics isn't about motivations, because information metabolism doesn't dictate motivations.

"Having a good time" is too vague, youre right, but life goals are "what I want." That's the best way I can describe the conflict between alpha SF and gamma NT. I find that the common definition of what is 'fun' to be pointless and unnecessary for the most part especially the center focus of life.

There is no common definition of fun. And slapping that on your conflictors as if nobly differentiating yourself purposefully is arrogant.

When you say "intelligent in a different way than I" then that means you understand exactly what I mean, and you are taking beyond that for no good reason because I was not making any implications. I mean intelligent in the common idea of what it means to be intelligent. Again, I didn't say that alpha SFs are unintelligent. They just aren't focused on things which show the common idea of what intelligence is.

My issue is with the common idea of what intelligence is, because I think I know generally what you mean. But I don't think a way of experiencing the world necessarily denotes focus. I think you could be easily mistyping a lot of non-NTs of whose preference for showing the common idea of what intelligence is pronounced due to a lot of other factors.

This whole thing has been very confusing, and I won't be surprised if there was some misunderstanding.

lol

[Creepy-female]

I wonder how many NTs would not consider themselves more socially retarded than your average person. I'm not doubting that there are some, but the trend is there I'm sure.

I think if they haven't read the forum they will be perfectly fine and unaware of their 'tardation lol. I have had no one in real life tell me directly or indirectly that I didn't show intelligence in the "common way" intelligence is expressed or seen. That kind of thinking is a mess of a dichotomy.

[Azeroffs]

I want to run outside and scream... you keep pulling out unintended implications.

I just have to start from scratch because I feel like everything is a mess.

Everything I said was merely the way one type would most likely see the other through their eyes. Yes, it is all very theoretical and I could very well be wrong considering I have no experience as the other types.

Yes, so is Si is an quantifiable, measurable, and introverted function is my question. I wasn't sure whether or not those terms were opposing or what their relation was to one another.

You even manage to make this far more complex than it had to be. No, introverted/extoverted and external/internal are not in any way related. I was hoping that could be inferred from me explaining what external meant. Ugh, I'm honestly confused. lol

[Creepy-female]

[Azeroffs]

I think if they haven't read the forum they will be perfectly fine and unaware of their 'tardation lol. I have had no one in real life tell me directly or indirectly that I didn't show intelligence in the "common way" intelligence is expressed or seen. That kind of thinking is a mess of a dichotomy.

I was fully aware of my 'tardation' before typology.

[Creepy-female]

I want to run outside and scream... you keep pulling out unintended implications.

I just have to start from scratch because I feel like everything is a mess.

Everything I said was merely the way one type would most likely see the other through their eyes. Yes, it is all very theoretical and I could very well be wrong considering I have no experience as the other types.

Cool. Well fwiw I don't see nearly anyone as socially retarded for Socionics reasons.

You even manage to make this far more complex than it had to be. No, introverted/extoverted and external/internal are not in any way related. I was hoping that could be inferred from me explaining what external meant. Ugh, I'm honestly confused. lol

If you know the definitions and why they're unrelated, then why do you harbor confusion? That would be mine. Give me my confusion back!

I was fully aware of my 'tardation' before typology.

Maybe it's not type related? Most people have problems with something or other, and there are lot more evidence heavy explanations to account from them than Socionics.

I mean whatever, I need to take my own advice, because Socionics is sort of my way to explain the world, and I see that it's kind of your way too. At least your hypothesis help things make sense for you, but they haven't been very useful for me, and neither has the greater part of most of the info on this board. We don't have to keep arguing.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Azeroffs]

Ok, here we go..

No they don't. SFs taken in information in a different way than NTs, but they are not incapable of leading analytical lives if they so choose. For myself, the sheer tangible weight of "living life" and firsthand experience is such that I constantly have to analyse and categorize it not to go mad. Sensations in and of themselves are useless. It is not enough to react to the world, or simply be involved. One must know for what they are doing things and why, and be willing to step back and see the patterns actions take.

What do you propose then, is the spot of conflict between gamma NTs and alpha SFs. Truthfully, I haven't had a lot of experience with many alpha SFs.

Yes, so is Si is an quantifiable, measurable, and introverted function is my question. I wasn't sure whether or not those terms were opposing or what their relation was to one another.

I know I responded to this already, but after reading it again I understand it better. I'm not sure if it's socionics related or what, but I have a hard time understanding your writing.

Si is external so it is quantifiable and measurable. It is introverted meaning it deals with the subjective interpretation.

I suppose if one is first and foremost adept at assessing and reacting to their environment by physical means, one might perhaps generalize them as nonthinking, but I don't really like that. I think you overlook the extent to which SFs will go intellectually to make sense of and clarify their observations and beliefs, even to that it will be more apparent than anything else about them.

Again, this is what will be observed, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. I'm saying that NTs will likely see SFs as airheads, but that doesn't mean that SFs are actually airheads.

Logic is a great term. And just because we don't have diversity, doesn't mean it's right to act in any other way than in the interest of developing that diversity. It's not a very just system that is represented in reality by a few, but goes by the title The 16 Types.

I meant that it was the wrong term for what was trying to be said. I never said anything about it being right or wrong. I was saying that they aren't here so people try to represent them regardless of whether or not that is right.

Yes you will. Information metabolism doesn't bias you as much to simply discarding your character judgements of people. Like JWC3 said, it's very possible to dislike your duals. That's not a proper quality on which to evaluate relations when you take into account the other variables besides Socionics.

Many character judgments are decided by socionics, but it is true that character judgments are also decided by other factors. For that reason, it is true that this is not a proper way of evaluating relations, but I wasn't trying to say that it was. I meant that you will probably like your dual.

Priorities and life focuses aren't solely or even generally dictated by type, and thus cannot be applied as such.

This is false. Priorities is exactly what socionics touches on. Priorities of mental focus. The mental focus then becoming a priority of your life.

What I meant by that is I evaluate my relationships on a more personal basis, but if by social you meant purely relations as they are seen in humans, I don't see NTs as social retards. They can navigate the social realm in their own way, and it may be clunky in some ways, but it's very intelligent in others. They can be adaptive, they can be wise and mature and great in the social realm, relating to humans, and dealing with emotions. I think your dichotomy there is useless because you're assuming somehow that types can't adapt to their environment or and their true intentions won't be the ultimate signpost or something.

It is generally accepted that S and F give social advantages over N and T. S focusing on immediate situations and F focusing on things most readily provided by people. People can adapt, but their ability to adapt to certain aspects of reality is determined by type. SFs are naturally able to be involved in these things. NTs have to adapt because they are not. That's the point. They have to adapt because it's not natural.

Now you are projecting if you think that Alpha SFs are all about "the simple things", or that they're all about having fun. Characterizing your priorities as "worthwhile" ignores the fact that a Alpha SF could be meeting all your personal ideas of what "worthwhile" is, thus making you think they are not Alpha SF. Socionics isn't about motivations, because information metabolism doesn't dictate motivations.

Alpha SF's natural focus is on how their senses affect them and the emotional energy that occurs because of that. Gamma NTs don't focus on it. Gamma NTs focus on long term processes and actions. Alpha SFs don't focus on that. Call whichever simple or worthwhile. I'm sorry my use of those terms was entirely subjective. Socionics determines mental focuses which highly infleunce motivations.

There is no common definition of fun. And slapping that on your conflictors as if nobly differentiating yourself purposefully is arrogant.

There is a common definition of fun. Anything enjoyable. I find almost anything 'enjoyable' to be pointless if that is the only purpose it has. Yes, I do things that are enjoyable and fun, but I put no value to them, and would readily drop them for anything I consider to be 'worthwhile.' I can't come up with a less vague term, because it is quite vague. Maybe, something that lasts. Something that helps. Something productive to be stereotypical. You might agree with this sentiment, in which case I was wrong and I apologize.

My issue is with the common idea of what intelligence is, because I think I know generally what you mean. But I don't think a way of experiencing the world necessarily denotes focus. I think you could be easily mistyping a lot of non-NTs of whose preference for showing the common idea of what intelligence is pronounced due to a lot of other factors.

I have typed an NT who I would not consider to be overly intelligent. I tend to associate NTs as types who approach the world in a certain way. The approach is most closely described by the word thinking. I have no other way of describing it. Thinking about the world is just as much strength as it is a weakness when taken too far, as NTs do. You seem to be overly touchy about the fact that I consider SFs to be the opposite of that. SFs are certainly intelligent in their own regard, but their style of intelligence is just different from NTs. I believe that we agree and that it is just a difference in semantics.

[Azeroffs]

Yeah.

Alphas: treat each person as a soul (Extroverted+Internal - Ne, Fe) but treat humanity as meat (Introverted+External - Si, Ti).
Gammas: treat humanity as souls (Introverted+Internal - Ni, Fi) but treat each person as meat (Extroverted+External - De, Te).

How can they agree?

Are you sure it's not the other way around? Ni+Fi requires a connection to an object making it harder to value the whole of the world. Ne+Fe is unbiased in their emotional and abstract connections.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Azeroffs]

Cool. Well fwiw I don't see nearly anyone as socially retarded for Socionics reasons.

I think it makes sense that Se and Fe are most related to social interaction as compared to anything else in socionics. Se has an immediacy of reaction because of it's direct connection to observation. The anti-introspectivenss of the element helps socially. Fe involves emotional involvement because of it's focus on emotional stimulus. The receptiveness of this element helps socially.

Can you really argue that there is not a clear difference of sociability between ESFx and INTx at least most of the time?

If you know the definitions and why they're unrelated, then why do you harbor confusion? That would be mine. Give me my confusion back!

I think I explained sufficiently above.

Maybe it's not type related? Most people have problems with something or other, and there are lot more evidence heavy explanations to account from them than Socionics.

Certainly possible. Socionics is not my end all explanation to sociability. I actually hold that the enneagram has a much stronger hold on it, but it is certainly conceivable that there is a lot more to it then just these two things.

[Azeroffs]

Yes, I am :|. Only extroverted functions deal with individuals (instances of the human), the introverted ones don't

Why do you say Ni and Fi make the connection with one object at a time? Fi/j types, at least, deal with people considering almost exclusively their category - good/bad, familiar/unfamiliar, mine/not mine, etc. The individual, taken out for itself of such evaluation becomes rather irrelevant.

So IMO this is what you confused: this "connection" with each individual comes from it's category, not the other way around.

Idk, I guess it kinda makes sense considering my moral views. I've kinda dropped my understanding of field elements as 'connections' anyway. It does make more sense as subjective/objective.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request