Conflict Res Types (cont)

[tcaudilllg]

The testimony of EIIs at the INFJ Facebook group (and some help from an LII) has permitted me greater insights into the conflict res types, particularly as regards their motivations.

A single pair of traits underlies the quadrachotomy, platonicism and romanticism. Each trait can be either positive or negative.

• Postively platonic people are hurt by losing people from their circle of friends. They fear social ostracism.
• Negatively platonic people are unhurt by losing friends. They do not fear ostracism.
• Postively romantic people are hurt by romantic rejection. They believe in love at first sight, and see love in intellectual terms ("love is something known").
• Negatively romantic people are unhurt by romantic rejection. Their feelings for a person ebb and flow depending on the situation. They see love as something felt, something enrapturing and consuming.

Although friendship and love for another are perceived by the F functions, type does not play a role in the perception, only in how one tries to go about realizing them.

To wit:

• Bold types have negative platonicism and positive romanticism. They tend to emphasize romance over friendship, and will break off friendships in pursuit of it.
• Civil types have negative platonicism and negative romanticism. They tend to see all relationships as matters of convenience.
• Negotiator types have positive platonicism and negative romanticism. They value friendship very deeply, but tend to see romance as a commodity.
• Appeasing types have positive platonicism and positive romanticism. They take all of their relationships, conjugal and platonic very, very seriously.

Emotional pain constrains a person's responses to conflict. Bold types and civil types alike de-emphasize popularity, and this allows them to challenge the status quo. Negotiator types and appeasing types feel pain at the perception of emotional distance, and are largely constrained to the norms of their culture.

[Radio]

It would probably help to use terminology most others are familiar with to get your point across.

[tcaudilllg]

There is another thread on conflict resolution types in this forum. And no there is no other terminology available. Cutting edge stuff.

[tcaudilllg]

There may not be 16 conflict res types, only 12. I'm thinking that all four styles are represented somewhere in the personality, but depending on which the ego and shadow prefers, the others must be used as masks to maintain their war.

Wait now, that only leaves 8 types, because each style can only be masked by its opposite, unless any style can mask any other...?

I'm settling on 8 for now. I'm open to 12 or 16, but I can't see how to think about them... they aren't as conceptually evident as these 8.

Recall from the earlier thread that both the ego and id claim a style, and the internal war between them is primarily defined by skepticism due to supposed dangerousness of either side's ideas. That means each person has two levels of conflict resolution, one for dealing with civil disputes (the ego handles these), and another for dealing with aggression (the id handles this). The ego masks the id's style by emulating its opposite. Jung called this emulation the "false self" or persona. Romantic attraction is always greatest towards those whose ego is one's own persona.

Described in the following list are the ego/persona conflict resolution combinations.

• Bold/Negotiating: commitment to friends requires doing the difficult, hard, and unpopular thing.
• Bold/Civil : "bad boy" ethos. Relationships are distant, or even unimportant. Social responsibilities are paramount, and it is necessary to do what must be done to meet them, even at the price of popularity.
• Civil/Bold: to succeed, one must show flexibility in relationships.
• Civil/Appeasing: to bring people together, one must be flexible.
• Negotiating/Bold: to succeed, one must have friends to rely on.
• Negotiating/Appeasing: to bring people together, one must have friends to rely on.
• Appeasing/Negotiating: Obligations to friends requires commitment to peace.
• Appeasing/Civil: To meet one's responsibilities, one must emphasize relationships with others.

I see now... everything is clear. There are only 8... consensus to non-consensus is the rule.

As I was writing this, I was reminded of the final scene in DBZ, where Goku defeats Majin Buu with a Spirit Bomb. Goku's pleas for energy from the people of earth are unheeded, because the people do not know him. Vegeta tries to intimidate the people into helping Goku, but that just shuts them all down. Only Hercule, who had previously took credit for the victories of the Z Fighters over Cel, had the trust of the people needed to create the cooperation for the spirit bomb. The Z Fighters were too proud to accept the credit for the victory over Cel... only someone like Hercule, who was willing to sacrifice his relationships for a greater good, could accept responsibility for the deed and with it, the people's trust.

I think it a sign of the greatness of Goku's character, that he takes it all in stride.

[tcaudilllg]

More notes.

I'm dropping the use of the word "negotiation" in this context (too Te-centric) and instead using the term "associative" in its place.

Bold/Associative: The scions of an interest, especially intellectual, which they doggedly pursue until determining success or failure.
Bold/Civil: The founders of new societies and organizations. Rather than cause a ruckus with their beliefs, they choose to break away. They dislike social stress.

To put these two in context, consider Gen. David Patreus and George W. Bush. Bush is the bold/civil person, who out of a sense of personal duty invaded Iraq to secure the safety of the United States (per the Constitution and his role as president). He committed himself to the safety of the country regardless of America's own perceived national interests: Americans were concerned for their safety but not at the expense of other such concerns. Patreus came in to clean up the mess, representing America's true balance of interests as suggested by the 2006 elections and polls. The former is the position of a guardian, the latter a self-appointed scion.

[tcaudilllg]

I've had some insight into the motivations for the styles. First off, new terms: bold = separating; negotiating = associating; civil = dutiful; appeasing = dialogue.

• Separating/Associating: means for others
• Separating/Dutiful: means for self
• Dutiful/Separating: control of self
• Dutiful/Dialogue: freedom for self
• Associating/Separating: control of others
• Associating/Dialogue: freedom for others
• Dialogue/Associating: improvement of others
• Dialogue/Dutiful: improvement of self

In light of the corrections, you can see why the term changes were necessary. "Negotiating" applies only to associating/dialogue-type persons -- they are the "agree to disagreers". You see Occupy Wall Street, that's the ethos they are running on: bringing people together for dialogue. Then with the dialogue engaged, the governors exercise the group as one unit.

Think of Roger Smith vs Alex Rosewater in Big O: one makes a living bringing people together to discuss their differences; the other brings them together to complete specific tasks. One fights for freedom, the other for control. One is a free spirit, the other a master puppeteer.

It should be clear now why the dialogue people are the glue: they are willing to hear either side because their chief goal is improvement, not free will (nor control) in itself. They submit to the consensus they themselves create.

[tcaudilllg]

Now some typings:

• I peg hmmkr as associating/separating, and I think Joy as well.
• I peg esper, crazedrat, myself, and Gilly as seperating.
• Jenna I think is associating/dialogue.
• Hydrangea seems dialogue/dutiful

One additional note: I've been inviting a lot of MBTI people to this thread. The link to the original conflict resolution thread is not posted for a reason: I want to increase the probability that people will "look around" rather than just read this single concept and be done with it.

[tcaudilllg]

VI characteristics:

- Seperating/Associators have a very focused look bordering on obsession. They tend to have VERY long attention spans. They tend to be lean of build. I would refer to Cloud Strife as an example.
- Dutiful/Seperators tend to be "good looking", with lots of charm. They try to look confident.
- Dutiful/Dialoguers tend to be glamorous, and have loose hanging skin. Think Oprah.
- Associating/Seperators tend have a well-defined build and a "let's do it" kind of look. See Obama and Natalie Portman.
- Associating/Dialoguers tend to gain weight easily. They give the impression of someone who is free. They seem to have more fat than the other types, giving them a plush toy-type look. (see Steve Jobs, Einstein, and Jung)
- Dialogue/Associators have Vulcanish eyebrows. They are "go getter" type people who don't let anything stand in their way.
- Dialogue/Dutiful people are often lean, with an almost serpentine facial shape. They tend to be into self-improvement exercises and spiritual discovery, "New Age"-y type stuff.

May have got dutiful/dialoguers and dutiful seperators mixed up, need more info to know for sure.

Notice that none of these traits are connected to socionics type.

[Kierva]

Would you care to explain what bold, civil, negotiator and appeasing is in this context?

[tcaudilllg]

Bold means "going against the grain", and especially against the group.
Civil means pretty much staying off to yourself. Acting in spite of the group, but not really trying to affect it either.
Negotiating basically means trying to stay on good terms with as many as possible, and bringing people together.
Appeasing means trying to keep the group together.

[rat1]

I like this Tcaud, the main problem is no one sees how this is oriented with the 100 other things you have posted. You should probably make an index of your posts, or just a very rough overview of it so people can reference the whole theory visually. The organization of the whole psychological reality has to be conveyed to people. That would increase discussion at least with interested / qualified people.

It would probably help to use terminology most others are familiar with to get your point across.

It's not hard to read in itself. It's not the terminology its the overall point that people dont get.