Rules and socionics types
Which types set them?
Whicb type follow them?
Which type don't but expect others to abide by them?
Me: I don't set rules and external boundaries. Obviously being the dual of an authoritarian LSE I follow rules and external boundaries easily (forgetfulness will be caused by my stresses but I will resume when reminded and will defy them if the rules negates human emotional sensitivity and strives to repress the individuals emotional concerns, which isn't often).
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Me im all like, dont be a dick. You know the rules.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I'm all like "you know I'm hurt and upset yet you want me to shut up. I'll show you how that's going to go." Then I take those rules and run a machete over them. Well that's how you know that someone cares about you anyway. They'll recognize that and be sensitive with regard to it and treat you better.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Ti types seem to like rules. It simplifies their world and allows them to make order out of it.
Everyone follows rules. Ti producing types tweak the rules continuously to varying degrees.
Ti accepting types don't change the rules, but follow only those which don't contradict their previous rules.
Last edited by ConcreteButterfly; 12-01-2014 at 09:52 AM.
never gave a shit about rules
it you read some actual gulenko profiles of intj it'll say intjs characteristically ignore rules that don't suit them, so this isn't even canon socionics.
quick and dirty
Beta ST (narrative +T)Originally Posted by Maritsa
variable
dickheads
narrative +F working with asking +T in Delta
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
There's no need for rules unless you start playing up
You'll have to define what you mean by rules. Almost everyone follows the implicit rules of interaction in face to face settings among a circle of acquaintances. Almost everyone ignores wider, impersonal laws when it's to their advantage, and these can only be enforced through force or gradual resignation.
In general, it's easier to control people through fear of ostracism than threat of violence. That's why the most sophisticated advertising and propaganda methods were developed in the freest societies.
You seem to be one of the few people understanding that; at least that political-correctness is of the same tier and used in the exact same purpose as enforcement (not just violence, but any kind of punishment).
I think though that sensibilities to ostracization better propagate in societies with lesser individualism, just the rest should not necessarily be totalitarian. There may be there truly free people, IMO, just the society needs a very high average intelligence (and this state might not even be stable). Let us compare the USA with the Netherlands, for example.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote