Run with it!
The Suggestive Function: Cruel Oppressor of the Young
Run with it!
As a child I was plagued by alpha Fe -- I hungered for acceptance yet could not find it because I could not make it. (my primary means of being accepted was by being the "good little boy", and this worked with (most) adults, but not my peers). I could not "get" people to be my friends. So I accepted myself, discharged my anger, and began to only accept others on condition that they accepted me. I observed that I didn't want to, didn't need to change myself because I already behaved as the standard of what a person should be; hence it wasn't my prerogative to seek acceptance where it was not awarded, but to punish -- judge -- others for not awarding it by ostracizing them from my own declared sphere of friendship.
Removed at User Request
pinnochio stop it with the mob appeals
Wow I relate to this paragraph a fuck load. Especially the bold.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Removed at User Request
Without the serial killer allusion I would assume.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Removed at User Request
I think Pinocchio gets his suggestive functioning from a seance by the sounds of it.
Wouldn't this be mostly Fi? As I understand it, "like/dislike" is the province of Fi. Fe would pertain more to "happy/sad".
"I can't make people like me" = Super-Ego Fi.
"I can't make people feel happy" = Super-Ego Fe.
"I wish people would make me happy" = Super-Id Fe.
Of course, they're rather directly related -- the easiest way to make people like you is to make them feel happy.
For what it's worth, though, I definitely empathize with this (except for the last part about punishing/judging/ostracizing people who won't be my friends; I'm more "live and let live" in that regard). It makes me think my previous intuitive feeling about you being IEI may be wrong -- as intuitive feelings often are.
Quaero Veritas.
I find Pinnochio's post about fantasy worlds and serial killers interesting.
I don't think there is anything wrong with "fantasy" in and of itself though -- take 4 cases.
1) An olympic athlete who has a fantasy of winning a gold medal in the olympic and trains hard and eventually succeeds. This would have to begin with a fantasy, which would turn into a goal, which is then worked at in order to be realized. A lot of athletes actually get through all the tough training because its that fantasy of victory/achievement that drives them.
2) An artist/writer who uses fantasy creatively. They place their fantasies down into a work of some sort. It could be musical in nature, something they hear first in their head before it is put into motion. It could be literally a fantasy world with fantasy people in the case of an author writing a story or novel of some sort. It could be an image in the case of visual art or a movie for a film maker. All this internal fantasy (it may be pleasant or dark in nature) relates back to a need for self-expression of the artist.
3) An engineer/builder who uses fantasy in order to imagine a finished product or result before it is constructed. Particularly here I am thinking about maybe new technology, envisioning new advanced forms of technology and then experimenting around with things in order to invent this technology or discover why it is or is not possible.
4) Sexual Fantasy, need I say more, pornography would not exist without this.
Anyways I mention these four cases because fantasy is so ingrained into human cognition that I always feel unsatisfied at the explanation psychologists give concerning fantasy. It seems like the immediate remedy they purpose is to loose fantasy, but it seems to me to be the seat of creativity, to imagine something first and then put it into actualization.
I think part of the negative psychology of fantasy is when its used to anesthetize ones pain they feel from whatever problem is causing them this pain in reality. At first this isn't such a big deal, but after a while the problem in reality grows because its not addressed, and one has to indulge harder and harder into their fantasy to feel better. Eventually it forms grandiose fantasies, which are hardly realistic or obtainable in the real world. After sometime these fantasies become the focus of their life and are pursued in reality, which can lead to a combination of effects depending on the person's temperament.
If they feel like they do not have enough control over their lives, feel confined, feel powerless, or feel put down. They will likely develop sociopathic tendancies or depression. Sometimes both which alternates with unstable mood, like a manic-depressive. In their manic state - sociopath... in their depressive state - depression.
One feature of sociopaths in particular, is a sort of need to destroy the beauty in the object that they envy. A rational person on the other hand wishes to preserve the object of beauty out of appreciation for it. Destroying the object of beauty for them is an act of possession -- i.e. "If I can't have it, no one will".
Tcaudillg, doesn't seem like a sociopath, just a bit of a loner... which I have a feeling is a result of his intelligence/mind. Unfortunately to me, this seems to be the feature of tcaudillg which stands out to me, and unfortunately most people could care less. What attracts people is the way one expresses themselves interpersonally. Maybe all that is really required is develop some proficiency with interpersonal skills through practice. Lol sorry if this isn't helpful or anything, or offensive. It may not even apply since in all fairness this post is about his childhood and not the current state of things.
Feeling happy would actually be Si, I think. "Enjoyment", pleasant experiences. I once argued Fi was like/dislike myself, but Fi (with Se) is solely about fairness. Unfair treatment is, of course, a very good reason to dislike someone or to disagree with them.
I think happy/sad is an Fe response to Ni.
I'm not surprised the ILEs don't reciprocate -- they feel extremely strong pressure to be accepted, after all. What I'm not seeing yet is the whole suggestive/estimative connection in this context.
Hmm I've always considered Fi to be about personal subjective value judgements...
I'll use an analogy to explain
Take a Light Bulb which gives off light
An Fe ego is highly aware and confident of their feelings associated with the light.
An Fi ego is highly aware and confident with their feelings associated with the lightbulb.
The Fi ego makes a valued judgement concerning the value of the lightbulb (since it can produce light, which their Fe id is aware of)
The Fe ego doesn't focus too much on the value judgment, but instead considers the light from the lightbulb to be a good/valued thing (they also make the connection this is because the lightbulb produced it via Fi in their id)
Now replace the lightbulb with more practical issues like a person's feelings associated with relationships to material things, people, and society/community.
This is how I typically view Fe and Fi. It illustrates this principle of the difference between Introverted Functions and Extroverted Functions. Many people believe introverted functions and extroverted functions were purely named so arbitrary and their is no principle that can be used to distinguish the logical difference between the two. I would disagree.
There must indeed be a measuring stick by which to assess fairness, mustn't there? Because fairness, like all other things, is relative....
Removed at User Request
Hmmm I see what your getting at here, your considering that Fi is the measuring stick by which fairness is assessed, which is a relative concept that relates back to ones "sociotype" or "personality".
So working the other way, you can get a better sense of people and their concept of fairness or their Weltanschauung (World View -- I've always loved that word <3).... anyways... or their Weltanschauung from considering their Fi-ness.
To me I view fairness as more complex. What is it to be fair? I believe that question spans across all the functions. If your specifically talking about what a person feels is fair as a result of some felt connection to something then this is probably Fi. But other functions come into play also I believe.
Give me more credit than that. Of course another person's sense of fairness could be the measuring stick, or other means could be used to determine it as well. (Te as a measure of worth, for example) But the measuring stick is always an EM function of some sort.
@HaveLucidDreamz regarding the mini-essay on the pros and cons of fantasy: well said, sir. I agree with your premise. Fantasies are a lot like alcohol -- they can be an entertaining diversion, and also provide relief from emotional pain, but in so doing both present a danger to the weak-willed of becoming addictive and preventing one from dealing with one's problems.
Those are... highly non-standard definitions. Is this your own theory, or are you arguing that this is how classical socionics defines the elements?
As I understand it, Si is primarily concerned with monitoring the flow of physical sensation: comfort/discomfort, (physical) pleasure/pain, wet/dry, rough/smooth, sweet/sour, etc. It's the dynamic connections between physical processes.
Fe, on the other hand, monitors the dynamic internal emotional state: happy/sad/angy/calm/excited/passionate/melancholy, etc. Fe isn't "about" anything, although it can be caused by things -- Si, for example: "This comfortable chair makes me feel happy!" Or Ni: "This dream for the future I have makes me feel passionate!"
Fi is feelings and sentiments "about" things: like/dislike, respect/disrespect, good/bad, admiration/scorn, acceptance/rejection, etc. It categorizes people and things according to personal sentiments.
Fe and Fi can be difficult to distinguish, because a lot of the English words we use to talk about feelings are ambiguous, and could refer to either one -- the word "feelings" itself, for example. Fe is often not even expressed in words, but in tone of voice and body language.
The best way I can think of to sum it up is that Fi is opinion and sentiment about things, while Fe is inner emotional energy.
Quaero Veritas.
"This comfortable chair makes me feel happy!"
If I were a lesser man, I'd quote that in my sig.
Removed at User Request
I think tcaud was only referring to an assumed context that "feeling happy" was used in.
The phrase "I can't make people feel happy" could be replaced with "I can't make people feel comfortable" and have the same meaning and point to Si.
However you can also replace "I can't make people feel happy" with "I can't make people feel loved/adored" and have the same meaning and point to Fe.
To Pinocchio: If you define sociopath as anyone that has similiar "life stories" that former serial killer's have had before they went ape-shit, a great number of people would be considered sociopaths, myself included. In other words, before a serial killer has plotted and taken their first life, they were really just a normal person. It was whatever threw them over the edge that is to blame for the killing spree, not the life conditions preceding the killings. A lot of people have the potential to be serial killers, they just have no Reason yet.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Yea I didn't mean to add that part in to imply you were, I'm just used to posting opinions on youtube videos were I talk like that... where I make an opinionated judgment about something.
Anyways I'm weighing my opinion in here without absolute certainty, I just wanted to get the ball rolling on this topic.
No Ephemeros I have not had psychopathic tendencies that I know of, but if I do you will be the first to know.
Am I the only one here that's completely missing how tcaud's-DS relates to his lonely childhood?
Removed at User Request
Some people will only accept you if you prove yourself. As a kid, that's what I was missing which meant that I didn't receive as much acceptance as I desired... and moreover, via the element chain effect it kept me from fulfilling requisites for feeling accepted. For example, I learned that by fighting for others I could feel worthy of others' acceptance, because by fighting for someone you basically eliminate their justification for rejecting you.
Removed at User Request
If all of this relies on tcaud being IEI in Model A, you have wasted a great deal of your time. I would suggest not building on top of a false foundation in the future.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I'm not convinced that tcaud is IEI, but this actually makes quite a bit of sense.
Quaero Veritas.
Removed at User Request
You are using medieval social archetypes to clarify intertype relations? ... That's new.
How does this relate to IEI/SLE relations, with Se and Victim/Aggressor.
Lol well EM functions are meant to be a set which completely characterizes an entire individual. Kind of like a coordinate system, with 8 pieces of information you can characterize an entire "space" except in this case that "space" is the person's character.
The problem is certain aspects are hard to characterize in a particular coordinate system like socionics. Its like using cartesian coordinates to talk about a circle, you have to be like y = +/- sqrt(5 - x^2) which is confusing.... its a lot easier to just say R = 5.
This is how I view the fairness issue, to characterize fairness you would need information concerning all the functions and particular information on how these functions contribute to the whole. This is like a shape in 8 dimensional space and socionics is like a coordinate system. If this notion of fairness changes with respect to the real world/experience, then you have a dynamical system in 8 dimensional space.... which is utterly confusing.
Really I think socionics may not be entirely capable of formulating a universal theory of a person's views on the concept of fairness.... but in specific simple constrained situations it can.
If you know this, please explain why Tcaud would prefer to interact with SLE's over ESE's.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
So where does Don Quixote fit into all of this knight talk?
The end is nigh
Tcaud simply says he only accepts those who accept him. It's called reciprocation, and is a common trait among LII's. Nowhere did he say people must respect him, but that those who don't respect him are those that are not worth friendship. None of what he said matches with what you claimed he said.
Also, punishing/judging someone has nothing to do with confronting them for their mishaps. It's more like never contacting them again, and showing disdain for them amongst friends (What SLE's and some other betas will claim to be "Talking Shit").
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Haha, yeah, pretty much. It's like, "I have to fight for respect in the world enough as it is, why would I want to have to do that with my friends as well?"
I agree with this. To be honest, tcaud's original post sounds a lot like an LII's response to the Beta "testing" Pinocchio described ("I have to prove myself to you? Y'know what, screw that! You have to prove yourself to me!").
I grew up among Deltas, where the struggle to be accepted/respected wasn't really an issue. Relationships were defined by Fi, so if you had friends, they stayed your friends, and if you didn't have friends, you stayed lonely. No malice or anything, but if you weren't part of people's "in-group" of friends, you mostly got ignored. So I seem to have developed in the opposite way from tcaud -- I learned to be very open and accepting of people, and to appreciate any attention at all from a world that mostly ignores me.
Quaero Veritas.
Removed at User Request
): I read encyclopedias because no one wanted to be my friend.
D-SEI
This is me and my dual being scientific together
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
