Movement to rename "conflictors"

[Suz]

at close distance you ARE going to hate eachother.

Actually if you read some russian relationship descriptions, you would know that there is mutual attraction in this relationship at the beginning, or at long psychological distance, that's what makes this relationship dangerous. You seem to get along quite well, but that's just the surface. Underneath things are boiling. It's a time bomb, but it just hasn't exploded yet with some of you.

My thoughts as well.

Supervision is sort of like this too in that things start out well, boil under the surface, and eventually explode, except arguments can be healed somewhat through the shared ego function. What i noticed with supervision ime is after the explosion, if attempts to resolve conflict are pursued, the supervisor thinks all is healed, but the supervisee continues despising the supervisor.

[Slacker]

at close distance you ARE going to hate eachother.

Actually if you read some russian relationship descriptions, you would know that there is mutual attraction in this relationship at the beginning, or at long psychological distance, that's what makes this relationship dangerous. You seem to get along quite well, but that's just the surface. Underneath things are boiling. It's a time bomb, but it just hasn't exploded yet with some of you.

The closer the psychologial distance, the more you'll see the conficting functions, though I don't know if it has to get to "hate". On the other hand, if someone is making friends with a bunch of supposed conflictors, someone somewhere is mistyped.

[Simon Ssmall]

I spent a really extensive amount of time with my conflictor and the further it goes, the more you know the person the more you are aware you just see the world in totally different ways. It does not mean you have to hate each other whatsoever. If both people are mature there is nothing from stopping you to be respectful and kind to each other but you just wont understand what is going on and wont be able to help each other much. Also it is very likely you will hurt each other unintentionally. I remember I used to feel attacked/pressured constantly while she felt I make her feel guilty of something all the time. I doubt any of us had such intentions, we were just as we are.

[Jarno]

If both people are mature there is nothing from stopping you to be respectful and kind to each other but you just wont understand what is going on and wont be able to help each other much.

yeah but when you are in a romantic relationship with such a partner, you have expectations. When they aren't met or even go in the opposite way, you think the partner is deliberately doing that. Fights occur etc etc.

[Exodus]

I think it's important to note that intertype relations are really only applicable at close psychological distances. Duality, for instance, isn't much different from any other relationship at long psychological distances. It's only once people "break the ice" and start interacting on a closer psychological level that the unique characteristics of the various intertype relations start to manifest.

idk what your definition of "close" is, but often intertype relations manifest immediately upon meeting someone. (Rick had a funny encounter with an LSI when he came to Ann Arbor... ) It just depends on how much information you exchange / how much you engage the other person.

As I said, since Conflicting types tend to instinctively maintain longer psychological distances from each other (like the north poles of two magnets repelling each other), open clashes tend to occur less frequently than in some other relationships. But when forced into close proximity, Conflict results in the deepest and strongest clashes of any relation in the socion, with little chance of reconciliation outside of re-establishing a longer psychological distance.

Yeah.

The more obvious meaning is much more subtle and non-specific than that. It just means misalignment and disruptive difference. As to your "awkward" suggestion, the problem is that there are tons of pairs of types that are awkward towards each other. The term doesn't describe the unique characteristics of the relation, but something far more commonplace than those.

That's exactly what my problem with "conflict" is...but conflict also is just bad from a PR standpoint. Whenever I tell someone about socionics, they automatically assume Conflict means what I described above.

[Marie84]

That's exactly what my problem with "conflict" is...but conflict also is just bad from a PR standpoint. Whenever I tell someone about socionics, they automatically assume Conflict means what I described above.

Exactly. It creates a semantics issue that can cause contention with separating the subconscious explanation from the literal one (at least to outsiders of the theory)

[Krig the Viking]

idk what your definition of "close" is, but often intertype relations manifest immediately upon meeting someone. (Rick had a funny encounter with an LSI when he came to Ann Arbor... ) It just depends on how much information you exchange / how much you engage the other person.

As I understand it, long psychological distance is when you're being polite and formal and not really "being yourself", while close psychological distance is when you're being informal and not worrying about politeness, you're just "being yourself". The transition between the two, as I mentioned before, is what people refer to as "breaking the ice".

Obviously, some people (Dominant subtypes, for example, if you believe Gulenko's theory) tend to "be themselves" more readily, and hence intertype relations kick in sooner and more strongly. Two Dominant Conflictors would very likely clash almost immediately, while two Harmonizing Conflictors might avoid clashes almost entirely in anything short of forced confinement together.

Alcohol or other inhibition-reducing chemicals would also have an effect.

[tcaudilllg]

Krig that's solid thinking. Good job.

[Jimbean]

I might very well gain more experience of dating my conflictor.

There is this really nice ESI chick I am into. It will be interesting, I'm sure.

[JuJu]

Dissonant is good.

I agree with the idea of the thread--"conflictors" isn't 100% accurate.

The relationship, when it gets close, feels like being in a tinderbox... Anything could set the other person off, so you measure what you say.

My experience with this relationship is that it rarely breaks into open "conflict." It's fraught with uncomfortability, but not aggression or anything like that.

[krieger]

you people are just abandoning one sinking ship for another.

[Krig the Viking]

The relationship, when it gets close, feels like being in a tinderbox... Anything could set the other person off, so you measure what you say.

I like that, yes, that's exactly what it feels like. With your Supervisees, it feels like you're walking on eggshells, trying not to hurt them. With Conflictors, it's more fraught with danger in both directions.

[The Ineffable]

I'd have called this relationship "Contradictory/Relationship of Contradiction".

Edit: Regarding the OP, sounds ok conflict to me, as it's information conflict, not people, although because of the former, these people will often perform action to annihilate one another's actions.

[EyeSeeCold]

Relationships of Inhibition?

[Beautiful sky]

I prefer Contrary to Conflict it's straight to the point "opposite" but doesn't necessarily imply enmity

Is this coming from a person who stuck to a system (stuck to her own semantics) so bad that she ran away every time Dolphin came on? I guess you don't remember that, but I do.