Beta Quadra and Romanticizing Conflict

[JWC3]

I had it wrong, being beta isn't about romanticizing violence, it's about romanticizing conflict and physical aggression is merely a facet of that.

I really do think that is the case. Isn't there something romantic about the strong over coming the weak? The weak over coming the strong? The mighty being humbled, the humble becoming mighty.

It's just as awe inspiring to me to watch some one reach the top through cunning and skilled use of intellect as it is through physical force.

Climbing the unclimbable, beating the unbeatable, over coming the odds no matter how high they are stacked against you. There's something beautiful in that.

I personally view myself as a pretty strong willed and free-spirited person and I really do believe there is something romantic in the idea of a girl who can bend me to her will, force me to become vulnerable even if it's through manipulation of my pre-existing feelings for her. I long for someone who can do that, but will never willing submit just so I can feel subjugated.

It's about finding that dark dirty secret that makes the perfect person... human, exposing what was never meant to be seen.


There is absolutely nothing enlightened about letting your voice go unheard for fear of offending others. There's nothing virtuous about helping those who've squandered every opportunity to rise from squalor.

Let, the bored, the uncaring, the disinterested, and the unmotivated to their lot. There are obstacles to overcome, things to be achieved, mountains to climb, and trophies to win.

I will give life every ounce of effort I've got, come at it with the full force my arsenal is capable of. But damn... wouldn't it be something if that still wasn't enough?

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

somebody help him find his timemachine and go back to the 80s .

[Gilly]

Are you reading Ayn Rand

[JWC3]

Are you reading Ayn Rand

Nope, Ayn Rand is so dry and unpalatable. Generally for me to read a book I have to care about the characters and I just couldn't give a shit about Dagny Taggart.

[Gilly]

You should try The Fountainhead. Howard Roark is infinitely more compelling and actually has a soul, beyond being a literary locomotive for ideological advancement. Atlas Shrugged was the embodiment of her philosophy, which, IMO, was more geared towards appealing to a broader audience, more of a flag/rallying cry for her movement that the people she thought should be uplifted for society's sake could identify with; Fountainhead was more like her artistic memento.

[JWC3]

You should try The Fountainhead. Howard Roark is infinitely more compelling and actually has a soul, beyond being a literary locomotive for ideological advancement. Atlas Shrugged was the embodiment of her philosophy, which, IMO, was more geared towards appealing to a broader audience, more of a flag/rallying cry for her movement that the people she thought should be uplifted for society's sake could identify with; Fountainhead was more like her artistic memento.

I'll give it a shot. I assume your original comment was because this perspective seems to have been influenced by Ayn Rand?

[Creepy-female]

I had it wrong, being beta isn't about romanticizing violence, it's about romanticizing conflict and physical aggression is merely a facet of that.

I really do think that is the case. Isn't there something romantic about the strong over coming the weak? The weak over coming the strong? The mighty being humbled, the humble becoming mighty.

It's just as awe inspiring to me to watch some one reach the top through cunning and skilled use of intellect as it is through physical force.

THANK YOU. Now it's clear that Se is not directly related to physical aggression. It has to do with effectiveness. When you want something, it simply isn't always effective to be a blundering brute. Perhaps this sort of thing was confused with persistence. But there is a lot more to persistence of will and a singularity of goal than pounding your opponent with your funny little fucking stone fist. And you're right, to value something you have to know the feel of it's absence. Without the disparity, without the distinction, the presence of it is meaningless. So you set a goal, and break yourself against it, and your shin splints, your pain, the way he lay among his denim blankets, groaning in pain, that paid off, those weak legs gradually become thick bones, and now he squints his eyes in the sun, and runs, like an animal, calves tensing. It's beautiful. But I think it's easier to attribute willpower to that. It's less easy to put your finger on the goal when your brain bleeds little ribbons of blood and the wounds don't close. And with so much struggling, you reach what you had looked for..and it isn't there. Your goal is gone. Well guess what. It's not a 1 + 1 equation. Now the struggling changed you. And it's something you've got to live with.

[discojoe]

THANK YOU. Now it's clear that Se is not directly related to physical aggression. It has to do with effectiveness. When you want something, it simply isn't always effective to be a blundering brute. Perhaps this sort of thing was confused with persistence. But there is a lot more to persistence of will and a singularity of goal than pounding your opponent with your funny little fucking stone fist. And you're right, to value something you have to know the feel of it's absence. Without the disparity, without the distinction, the presence of it is meaningless. So you set a goal, and break yourself against it, and your shin splints, your pain, the way he lay among his denim blankets, groaning in pain, that paid off, those weak legs gradually become thick bones, and now he squints his eyes in the sun, and runs, like an animal, calves tensing. It's beautiful. But I think it's easier to attribute willpower to that. It's less easy to put your finger on the goal when your brain bleeds little ribbons of blood and the wounds don't close. And with so much struggling, you reach what you had looked for..and it isn't there. Your goal is gone. Well guess what. It's not a 1 + 1 equation. Now the struggling changed you. And it's something you've got to live with.

[Gilly]

yeah that was a little much. 'nuff with the Si role.

[thePirate]

yeah that was a little much. 'nuff with the Si role.

agreed, way too much.

[strrrng]

It's less easy to put your finger on the goal when your brain bleeds little ribbons of blood and the wounds don't close.

forget about the goal! you're bleeding for a reason, anyway. no use tending the wound, you have to defeat pain with greater pain.

[Creepy-female]

You see expression that has an emotional tone to it as borne out of emotional expression. You can make fun of it all you want, because I can't fucking stop you from attributing shit I never thought of and didn't mean. And yes it's uncomfortable for me because that wasn't the point. I didn't think of how the expression would be analyzed for its stupid emotional nuances and ironies. Oh my god I said ribbons of blood, I'm soo Fe. It's like before I didn't have to analyze shit in terms of what I could and couldn't say. Kindly provide a real Socionics explanation instead of indirectly proving you can't comprehend a Te/Fi thought process.

[JWC3]

THANK YOU. Now it's clear that Se is not directly related to physical aggression. It has to do with effectiveness. When you want something, it simply isn't always effective to be a blundering brute. Perhaps this sort of thing was confused with persistence. But there is a lot more to persistence of will and a singularity of goal than pounding your opponent with your funny little fucking stone fist. And you're right, to value something you have to know the feel of it's absence. Without the disparity, without the distinction, the presence of it is meaningless. So you set a goal, and break yourself against it, and your shin splints, your pain, the way he lay among his denim blankets, groaning in pain, that paid off, those weak legs gradually become thick bones, and now he squints his eyes in the sun, and runs, like an animal, calves tensing. It's beautiful. But I think it's easier to attribute willpower to that. It's less easy to put your finger on the goal when your brain bleeds little ribbons of blood and the wounds don't close. And with so much struggling, you reach what you had looked for..and it isn't there. Your goal is gone. Well guess what. It's not a 1 + 1 equation. Now the struggling changed you. And it's something you've got to live with.

Beautifully written.

[strrrng]

even when Se egos are physically aggressive, they retain tactical composure. the boundaries that Se gauges are set, regardless; enhancing focus on one or more doesn't cause clumsiness. this is the distinction to make between them and other types -- specifically, xSEs, who tend to blunder over boundaries in attempts to affect and further control activity in the environment.

[Gilly]

You can be so undeservingly pedantic. You're sly about it, though.

[Gilly]

Gun?

[Gilly]

I'm a pretty good wrestler.

[Gilly]

I'm good at catching sly. Haven't you noticed yet?

[Gilly]

catch me

boring.

[JWC3]

Maybe that's what you meant, but you focused on "violence" for some reason, and in my opinion, violence or no violence is kind of irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure I wrote off violence in the first sentence as something that can be a manifestation of a need to over come something. *RE-reads his first post* Yeah I did. And more or less I never said anything about reaching the top of pre-existing hierarchies or the top of ones own created hierarchies. That's a distinction to be made by the person, not by me.

And as for beta hierarchies being subjective. No shit. I could view it as very important to become the best competitive eater in the universe and you might not give two shits about that. Your applying your own literal meaning to my subjective and incomplete musings and then correcting me for being wrong.

[Gilly]

You're both eating at each other for projecting, and you're both projecting. Chillax.

[JWC3]

You're both eating at each other for projecting, and you're both projecting. Chillax.

I don't wanna, I enjoy fighting and as far as people to fight with go ananke is a pretty worthwhile opponent. In fact, more often than not I'd rather argue about anything with almost no regard as to the subject. The arguing is more fun.

[Gilly]

I win.

[JWC3]

Fuck. You made me laugh.

lol *Funky Dance*

[Gilly]

I win.

[silverchris9]

You're both eating at each other for projecting, and you're both projecting. Chillax.

So... this is an argument in beta quadra. Got it.

Failure is as interesting if not more interesting as success. But it's also because we're not good at imagining what success looks like, I think. So it's always this negative sublime, or this beautiful wreck, etc. And definitely, it's about struggle, not violence, although physical violence is a great metaphor for it, which is why you can talk about Milton's writing, for instance, as violent, and really that's the best way to describe it. Or in the Bible where it says "the kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent bear it away by force," (clearly that's Bible for Betas) it's not literal violence, it's not like you're going to punch the kingdom of heaven, it's this thing, whatever it is, that is described by the violence metaphor. That this is actually very similar to what Jung is describing with Se, or at least, what we think of when we think of the "violent" or "volitional" aspect of Se.

[strrrng]

Kindly provide a real Socionics explanation instead of indirectly proving you can't comprehend a Te/Fi thought process.

[Creepy-female]

That's what I attribute it to unless better reasoning and awareness can be utilized otherwise. You all are doing a shitload job of comprehending my motives.

[JWC3]

Yeah, cause you've never romanticized violence and conning before.

Yeah I have, I totally fucking have. This my epiphany that rectifying that. I've essentially realized that it's deeper than violence.

[strrrng]

What you described reminds me of some impressions I'd had awhile back of Beta vs. Delta aristocracy. The former being more organic and will-to-power driven, where leaders are more or less self-selected by themselves and their peers as having the right force of personality and personal makeup seen as strong and necessary for one's leaders to have (these attributes would vary situationally).

this is true. though I still think, at least in an ideal beta hierarchy, you wouldn't have some ******/ubermensch/whatever as the sole guiding force; but rather, it would be comprised of individuals whose respective aptitudes balanced each other out, rendering the 'leader' simply the individual with the personality most suited, not the statue others bowed to. but I guess when you're dealing with large amounts of betas, this isn't really possible.

The downsides to this (depending on perspective) is, as you say, the rules of the hierarchy are extremely subjective and most enforcement is carried out implicitly.

yeah, well it's more that the boundaries of interaction are implicit. 'rules' per say tend to be seen as largely unnecessary, because everyone within the hierarchy knows they are there for a specific reason. NiFe gauges how a person's energy/wavelength 'collides' with the others'; understanding this serves as a beacon for their potential usefulness. I can't count the number of times I've observed a beta (typically a chick) dismiss someone from a small group setting because of 'bad vibes' – seemingly out of nowhere to others. but that is how it works, you have to consistently monitor any underlying nuance in your behavior as they pertain to what are seen as very obvious boundaries.

As opposed to having clearly defined and measurable 'objective' rules and regulations where everybody knows vis-a-vis where they stand in the eyes of the law at any given time (supposedly), which tend to be more a feature in Delta aristocracy.

right. I usually figure that if people are able to operate autonomously, and choose to partake in a specific group, they should 'get' the rules. but this is where delta establishes their power: they don't segregate groups based on alignment of personal interest like beta; they create an overarching, implicit group that everyone knows they are part of, which is only maintained because of their ostensible focus on individuality and the pursuit of personal potential. there's a seemingly laid-back, each-to-his-own attitude, but that's only because the giant shackle is already there. this is where I think betas are more fair; we won't bind you to anything you don't commit to; groups are means toward an end, not the end itself.

Unfortunately for Beta, since the strength of their hierarchies depends so much on interpersonal factors, they typically don't outlast the death of the charismatic leader who forged them.

yeah, this is what I was getting at in the first comment. I really loathe the idea of being in a group that has one figurehead, like some fucking shining light. I wouldn't associate with anyone I didn't consider an equal, and am hard-pressed to find superiors.

I wonder how this differs in the octants though. most of the p-subs I've met seem to operate in a similar 'closed-circuit' manner, where the personal experiences are judged as vital to any broader social effect; my impression of j-subs, is like a domino sequence of whispers, where everyone retains individuality but knows they are acting toward something significant.

[strrrng]

sigh... ananke. I simply fail to see how your interpretation of the interaction holds weight. but at least it sheds light on how beta hierarchies come into formation lol. that king-kong bullshit was your projection, and people don't come out on top of fights where their position is based on a hollow pretense. I guess it's fortunate that he's young and receptive, and still likes to fight to fight. but so do you! so, of course he's easy to subjugate, what a demonic mistress you are. gilly, thankfully, attempted to balance the scales; in reality, he probably would have come out on top for appeasing and/or shutting down at least one of you and/or both, without sacrificing strength of defense.

[silverchris9]

sigh... ananke. I simply fail to see how your interpretation of the interaction holds weight. but at least it sheds light on how beta hierarchies come into formation lol. that king-kong bullshit was your projection, and people don't come out on top of fights where their position is based on a hollow pretense. I guess it's fortunate that he's young and receptive, and still likes to fight to fight. but so do you! so, of course he's easy to subjugate, what a demonic mistress you are. gilly, thankfully, attempted to balance the scales; in reality, he probably would have come out on top for appeasing and/or shutting down at least one of you and/or both, without sacrificing strength of defense.

Are you doing the pinnochio bold people's sn's thing? I've always liked it when he does it, but it doesn't make sense on you.

Anyway, I liked your story, inexorable force of destiny constraining us on all sides.

[Gilly]

I'm not at all impelled. I wonder why...

[JWC3]

This thread makes me chuckle.

[Gilly]

Well I kind of shitstormed them both, especially given that I had just ridden all over ananke right before, and JWC3 doesn't really give a damn about holding his ground I had to plant the flag twice though, because ananke doesn't know when to give up. Silly kamikazes.

[Gilly]

Artistic freedom my ass. The day you are my leader is the day I eat my own shit.