.
Gamma and being too serious, too 'deep' etc?
.
Last edited by aixelsyd; 11-29-2010 at 03:50 AM.
People don't really consider me too serious in the conversational sense. I've been known to stir up some heavy topics at times, but on average I'd say I'm pretty upbeat in conversation and keep it fairly light with some ironic jokes and sarcastic criticism.
Where people think I'm too serious is how I approach life in general. I'm unwilling to take the stupid risks that a lot of my friends make, and I've always had my priorities straight. People see me as stiff in that I'm not willing to do many crazy or 'fun' things. I've always been the sober realist, and I almost always take the 'smart' approach to everything.
It depends on the company.
My wide range of interests and knowledge allows me to shift to more appropriate gears, if needed. If you're one dimensional, I will only speak of materialistic matters. If you're two dimensional I'll try to add my personal comments. If you're three dimensional, I'll try to lead you into my own world of timeless observations.
There are two kinds of people who know me:
- People who see me on the outside
- People who've seen me on the inside
The first group knows me as reserved and serious. The second, deep, interesting and sometimes silly.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
You do look serious. Mhm.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I like having "deep" moments with people. These moments are when I feel like I really get to know someone for real and those people get to know the real me. I consider people who I can share my problems and who care share theirs with me to be closer friends usually. I look at people who are unwilling to have these moments as having barriers to be slowly removed or just shallow people not really interested in really getting to know their friends but all about the fun. Of course when people who I don't know try to talk my ear off about their deepest problems that can make even me uncomfortable.
“No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” -Anton Chekhov
http://kevan.org/johari?name=Bardia0
http://kevan.org/nohari?name=Bardia0
lol. Yeah... um, if you actually enjoy doing that, that would perplex me as well. I'll join the "you're too serious" crowd. But I wonder if the idea of socionics is that it's actually best for you to live your life that way?
I read the post, aixlsyd. Doesn't make 100% sense to me, but I found it interesting.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Yeah I relate to being overly serious definitely. I can also be weird and silly, but also serious at the same time. There's not really any point in time where I'm being silly but not being serious, and my kind of seriousness isn't forced and emotive in the sense that I'm drawing you in. It just exists, it is who I am and it can be hard to tell that I am that serious.
When people start being playful in discussion, there is obviously an immediate disconnect because the transfer of thought shifts, the theme and focus changes. I'm automatically bored by that kind of shift, and I do not care to get involved. When you add in silliness to a serious conversation, it almost never draws away from it, from my perspective. It's there to interest and aid the thought process, and merry types can't help but to include their-oriented distracting side comments about you or the situation, emotive shifts, not intellectual shifts, and that emotiveness really pervades my
. This is one of the easiest ways to tell who is
I don't know that I really enjoy it. I just don't see the point in doing something that doesn't make any sense to me. Like, why take a stupid risk, and why should I do something which could get in the way of my bigger priorities? It's just making life more difficult.
I guess, it's just that I'm always taking the future into consideration, and if something doesn't take me to where I want to be, it just seems like a waste to me. It's like chocolate cake. Sure it's good.. but only for 5 minutes and then all you're left with in the long term are fatter thighs and clogged arteries, so what was the point?
Hmm. I also noticed a difference in humor. I'm not sure if there is a certain tendency, but it seems
Actually I think this is related to irrationality/rationality.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Mmmm no I don't think I have this problem generally; i have been told so, although it's usually when I have a lot of stuff to do - in those cases I'm always thinking about what I have to do next which means I won't have much time to joke around. Not that I like being that way, but I naturally get like that from time to time.
If I'm sufficiently relaxed though I think I look sufficiently sillier / dumb / jokey. Of course it's a different kind of sillyiness when compared to
IDK about integrating with Alpha and Beta in my experience humor is not a problem per se, what gets in the way is either a group-oriented-leet-speak with Beta (it's easy to get along one-on-one, but I "miss" their group dynamics) or fart jokes with Alpha (for some reason I can't consider farting as funny).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Especially if you're around Alphas and Betas yacking it up and having a good time, Gammas can be like instant mood killers, and poisonous to the atmosphere.
Fe valuers might be talking trash and nonsense and end up saying things that aren't really true, but it makes them feel good to say it. They might even know it's not really true, but that doesn't matter when Fe > Fi. It's more about the external mood and uplifting people's spirits. The fact that something they're saying might be "wrong" doesn't matter.
Gammas are the first Quadra going up the chain to not value Fe and to instead place emphasis on Fi. A Gamma might feel that it's "wrong" (Fi) to be saying something that's not accurate, a half-truth, or completely untrue, and that you shouldn't be saying things that are untrue (an Fi value), and will feel the need to "correct" it, when the Alphas and especially Betas are really just having some fun and not really being serious. And I think that's where a lot of the 'gammas are too serious' sentiments come from.
Fe valuers: yack yack yack, A, B, C, and D, woooohooooo!
Gamma: okay I agree with you on A and B, but C is a stretch, and D is just totally false.
Instant buzzkill and mood disrupter. They don't care if something might be a stretch or completely untrue, they're just having fun and might even realize what they're saying isn't true. That's what trash talk is. It's more about saying things that make you feel good regardless of whether they're true or not, and even if you know it's untrue. It's non-serious discussion and just for fun.
Gammas fundamentally don't really understand and are a world apart from this, and especially ILIs with PoLR Fe.
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
Supposing I strongly disagree with ABCD, I'll probably say something like "ahah yeah" and then remain relatively emotionless. Arguing back in such a setting seems a bit too much, unless I know the other person quite well...
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I wonder if this behavior can be attributed to your Fe role function?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
My experience fwiw is that Gammas can be rather serious in the sense that their jokes aren't lighthearted. They're more 'cutting' and to the point....which can put other quadras off. I suppose the other side is, if this being the case, yourself (aixelsyd) maybe find the general joival humour and 'exciting' environment of Fe to be torture!
As for serious conversations, I think this varies from the person and i'm not entirely sure it's type related.
Was reading a reader analysis on Socionics.com. It looked at which quadra is the most mature ...
An explanation on "childish" and "mature" views in the Socion
I think that explains in part why Gamma looks so "serious" to non-Gammas. As another Gamma, it seems natural to me to have mature perceptions and also have the ability to turn those perceptions into meaningful results.
EDITED
Personally, even when I am at my goofy best, I make jokes with allusions to experiences that are commonplace but everyone doesn't always recall those immediately. As a result, it seems like I am on a private joke with myself ... so that too contributes to the serious part.
And, if I see something that is problematic, I at the very least contribute to raising awareness about the situation if I cannot fix it myself. So, yes, we talk about problems, don't look away from those ... and that does get us the badge of "serious". But it don't bother me.
Also, this need for a fun atmosphere is a social contrivance of sorts ... in some societies more so than in others. But that is Fe ...
Last edited by AQ; 11-26-2010 at 03:23 PM.
NiTe
The metaphysics of yesterday is the physics of today.
This whole "article" is a perfect example of self-flattery via socionics, from my point of view, especially Merry/Serious part. Or maybe I'm just Merry. Except if someone doesn't identify, uber-objective Pinocchio will just tell them they're wrong and delusional about themselves, even though he never met them... but the theory must be true, no matter what.
Steve,
Agree with most of what you said ... with Fes, they really lack an ability to acknowledge the reality of a situation (Te role or PoLR), so their "fun" is more like a drug that keeps them from seeing what is ocurring around them ...
They think it is OK to say and do as they please .... Beta NFs are more problematic as they very often know the consequence of what they are suggesting or insinuating.
With ESEs, they really are babes in the woods. Just focused on what they need, which they assume is what everyone else needs too. They can't separate the world from themselves. Like with three-year olds.
My personal experience with Fe is it manifests as the "temper-tantrum" function.
NiTe
The metaphysics of yesterday is the physics of today.
Not sure whether I understood ur intention correctly ... but, yeah, IRL there are plenty of Gammas who sit around and waste their time and life even if they have the ability to create something larger than what was just handed to them.
And, there are plenty of non-Gammas out there who have created moments of much more value ....
But, this reader analysis looks at the approaches the quadras take. "Mature" is a word loaded with positive connotations and so does seem self-flattering, I agree.
BTW, I think the writer is an INTj.
NiTe
The metaphysics of yesterday is the physics of today.
Lol. Okay, this is another example of what has been pointed out in other threads of late, that people who value/devalue differing functions will accuse each other of the very same things.
To me, someone who values Fi and Si over Fe and Se can seem exactly as you say of their opposites--like they do not see reality "for what it is" and simply do as they please, either heedless of consequences, or all too aware of them and proceeding nonetheless, with all the finesse of a snowplow.
And yes, if you see someone with strong Fe as living outside of reality, you may very well get a "temper-tantrum" as a result. And if I regularly dismiss the worldview of someone who values Fi, I expect that negative behavior may result: being ignored or stonewalled is one manifestation I've experienced.
Sorry you don't like people who aren't just the same as you--it's not an usual occurrence. But ...
come on. Are we really here on this site to put down vast swaths of humanity, or shall we attempt to understand our differences with less judgment attached, in order to achieve a lil' good old-fashioned understanding?
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
The writer is a self-typed ILE. I consider some implications made about Gamma there not only inaccurate, but not type related "what I am most certainly not, therefore THEY must be".
You are right, Golden. The post is strongly worded. Does not mean I am trying to put down people (hopefully).
NiTe
The metaphysics of yesterday is the physics of today.
Yes, which is why being a type is no guarantee that you will automatically live its potentially best manifestation. So, being Gamma or not is no guarantee of maturity.
I meant to read the write-up as an explanation for the Serious + Decisive values of Gamma, which do impart a focused, serious outlook... which then comes across as mature.
NiTe
The metaphysics of yesterday is the physics of today.
It's cool. I actually learned something from seeing my general "type" (Fe, Se valuing) described exactly how I could describe the negative aspects of the other (Fi, Si valuing). That is, I'm guilty of these dismissive reactions IRL.
And I'll be thinking about that for a while, because it seems pretty important.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
If I'm directing the conversation, which is rare, then it will almost inevitably go to something deep and serious. Unless it's someone I know well and I know s/he won't have anything to say about serious subjects (one-on-one).
I felt better reading the Fe vs Fi friendships thread than this one, maybe because the notion of "serious" is a bit too vague...
For instance as an IEI I'm also told I always talk mostly about *serious subjects* but I do it in a very decontracted/friendly way.
And serious in this case is just that my main topics are either novel ideas/subjects/concepts (like many N types, I prefer talking about ideas and expectations than concrete stuff) or personal growth/development (which is also a subject many people consider as "not fun")
So depending on point of view one could always be seen as "serious".
On the same level, when I ear someone very pragmatic and concrete talking about say, his latest car or home modifications/improvements, I think "wow, sounds so serious..."
"Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."
C. G. Jung
-
I would think that Gamma is the "normative" Quadra. They're not too deep, not too serious and not too un-serious, either. Remember, SEEs are the type that try to not get things get too "deep". SEEs are super-positive. Come on, Gammas are not this stereotypical instant mood-killers.
This isn't really type-related, but it's usually the Betas and Deltas who "take things too seriously".
But speaking as a Beta, I do experience Gamma and Delta as having more gravity than Alpha and Beta. Maybe the issue is just that a Beta, for example, will have a hard time bringing out the light side of Gamma, and vice versa. Or a Delta--well, a Delta is less likely to get my sense of humor and vice versa. So we will seem serious to each other.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
But isn't what we call "serious" about other people, just simply us not valuing their favored information aspects (and thus us witnessing them mastering the processing and generation of associated/related information elements) ?
"Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."
C. G. Jung
-
I guess you take serious to mean "focused on valuable prospects". I don't think that's what serious means here. I'm thinking it means how willing you are to acknowledge and deal with the negatives of reality or something like it. Relating to what Golden said about Gammas and Deltas having more "gravity", one could say that's because we dwell in the negatives. We don't try to shut them out by escaping, we take them head on, and get a good view of the battlefield. Whereas Betas and Alphas would rather escape the negatives with forced/induced positives.
Maybe. Myself, I don't see it as being negative versus positive, because I've seen plenty of Deltas, at least, who are quite positive in their thinking, although yes, many of them do face problems in a direct manner.
I'm not sure I escape negatives with forced/induced positives. You might see me exhibiting something Fe-ish and arrive at that conclusion, but it doesn't tell you anything about how I'm actually handling things.
The "gravity" I describe ... it's just sort of a quality that I experience. Like the person who has it is made of a slightly different, heavier substance than I am, totally apart from what they do or even say.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Ugh, I don't think deltas dwell in the negatives at all. I see them jump to the smiley's way too soon, in my experience. I think betas and gammas are most likely to spend more time 'in the abyss' so to speak, considering serious issues. The difference is that the beta can quickly hide it with a facade and pretend to be jocular and jovial. The problem will still fester at him/her though, and as soon as he/she is by themselves or with a very trusted person, the issue comes up again. The gamma is less able to 'fake' their feelings.
So really, here's how I see it: Ni valuers are more likely to spend time dwelling on the profoundly negative aspects of things in the sense of deep, existential problems (of course, Fi valuers are also more likely to spend time dwelling on profoundly negative things like the enormity of human suffering, not as an abstract, but as particular occurrences, injustice as actual occurrence rather than theoretical evil---not that theory/abstraction isn't important and real too). Fi valuers are more likely to show that they're dwelling on negative matters on their faces/in their attitude. Fe valuers are more likely to hide the fact that they're thinking about profoundly negative things so as not to spoil the atmosphere of the room.
I think "serious, deep" topics are a rather Ni-related thing (but then again, what one finds serious and deep is also type-related), but how one approaches them is more a Fe/Fi thing. I decorate the most serious topics with jokes, 'cause I'm NiFe. An ILI might come to a very similar conclusion, but not decorate it as much with lightheartedness, 'cause they're NiTe (Fe polr).
So, gammas come off as the most serious because they are both inclined to think about these really "deep" aspects of things, and to not control their self-presentation. So they think about deep things, and it shows. Whereas betas think about deep things and they seem light, and deltas show how they feel... but they usually aren't considering these deep, existential questions, or at least not on as regular a basis as the Ni-valuers. Alphas are the opposite of gammas because they usually don't dwell on these big dramatic themes, and even if they do, they easily glide out of it with a smile.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Yea
(D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)
I think what is avoided in Gamma is frivolity, not humour.
NiTe
The metaphysics of yesterday is the physics of today.
@Silverchris
I recall some conversations I've had with an IEI and an IEE. When I got into to more heavy topics about human suffering or pointlessness, etc.. The IEI carried on with the discussion pretty well and seemed to have a deep realization of what I was saying, but she would interject with cheesy jokes in a way that I saw as just changing the subject. The IEE kept the conversation going longer, but she seemed to reject what I was saying, which just lead to an argument where I just saw her as having a rosy view of the world.
I had a similar conversation with an SEE, but she was just in awe and didn't really contribute, and I just remember her saying "I've been looking for someone who thinks like you." I kinda found that funny.. do people really look for other people who think in a specific way?
Imo, serious types are more serious in communication, and decisive types are more serious in perception for lack of a better word.
I think there is some truth to Pinocchio's article. There being mature and childlike perception and judgment. Negative connotations aside.
The SEE probably appreciated your ability to tie together disparate data into a cohesive conceptual image, not necessarily demonstrate a specific form of thought.
This may be generally true. But it may also involve some kind of interquadra discomfort. I may misunderstand myself ... but it seems to me that with my Beta friends I can sustain very long, serious conversations. Do we make weird jokes in the midst of those conversations in order to not get drowned in negativity? Maybe, but not always.@Silverchris
I recall some conversations I've had with an IEI and an IEE. When I got into to more heavy topics about human suffering or pointlessness, etc.. The IEI carried on with the discussion pretty well and seemed to have a deep realization of what I was saying, but she would interject with cheesy jokes in a way that I saw as just changing the subject. The IEE kept the conversation going longer, but she seemed to reject what I was saying, which just lead to an argument where I just saw her as having a rosy view of the world.
I had a similar conversation with an SEE, but she was just in awe and didn't really contribute, and I just remember her saying "I've been looking for someone who thinks like you." I kinda found that funny.. do people really look for other people who think in a specific way?
Imo, serious types are more serious in communication, and decisive types are more serious in perception for lack of a better word.
I think there is some truth to Pinocchio's article. There being mature and childlike perception and judgment. Negative connotations aside.
But I can imagine that if I were engrossed in such a conversation with a type who made me a bit less comfortable on some level, I might seek an exit from the conversation. For example, I have had conversations in which I feel that one of the participants is correcting me in a way that is painful, as if the suffering or injustice under discussion were my fault, that sort of thing.
Example: a German friend of a friend in the U.S. once began interrogating me about the treatment of Native Americans in my country, sort of placing blame on every American including me, when he didn't even know that this issue is deeply entwined in my personal and family history (i.e., I'm a large percentage Cherokee through both my maternal and paternal lineages, and the stories on both sides are painful though very different). The guy in that situation was not totally wrong, but he was ill-informed and generalizing, and I didn't feel like spending two hours educating him about the complexities, the differences among the many tribes, the cultural gaps that made his proposed solutions irrelevant, etc. Nor was I comfortable enough to reveal the bulk of my personal feelings and views, as he and I were not close.
(And the guy in question was clearly not Beta, whatever his type.)
In a case like that, yeah, I'll reach a point of exasperation and remove myself from the convo. Not necessarily with humor the other person will find inappropriate, but probably in some Fe-related manner. But I'm not a kid, and I'll try to exit gracefully, not with a light quip or a crude joke.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Since the topic has generally digressed to the tendencies towards certain types of conversation within quadras, my experience is this:
Every single person who thinks themselves, in some way shape or form, to be slightly more curious, slightly more intelligent, slightly more deep than the average persons finds it difficult to encounter a fellow human being to exchange their thoughts with wholly and comfortably.
On the rare occasion when one is found, it is natural for the seeker to want a deeper, more "divine" connection to this person. In a Socionics forum, this divine connection is being in the same quadra, or sharing the same function. On occasion, it will be true and on other occasions they will not be, but it does not really matter.
Intelligence, profoundness, curiosity, loneliness, existentialism these things transcend quadras, types, and even functions. If someone has these characteristics, they can be whatever you want them to be.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
I feel suffocated in
Reply With Quote
