On the use of the "royal" I
I is used a lot by myself. Thus I predict that all IEIs use I as a thing. This can probably be confused with other types that also use the I, but in a not "royal" way. Hrrm. Don't know how one would tell the difference. Hrrm. And please excuse my use of th word royal. It isn't anything narcissist. I compare it to the royal we when describing your people. I'm describing myself like I am a nation.
Not sure what the royal I is, but I talk in second person point of view all the time.
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 totally get what you're sayin'.Originally Posted by Alomoes
Did "we" seeing this coming?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Royal I, you're reaching out for significance in other people
Wait what? I thought I was reaching out for signifigance in myself. Well, I also predict that Deltas are also equally as elitist as I, and they only care about hard work. I'm a slacker, so I'd never make it in. Hence why it is such an elitist group.
Sorry. I understand that is such a touchy subject around here. :C
Don't understand why it is so touchy. :C
This is probably why betas are so exclusionary, everyone else is so touchy about things.
My own experience is that Beta is the driven quadra, more willing to sacrifice their comfort, and that Deltas are more balanced in combining work and quality of life. I would also not wish to characterize an entire quadra as elitist.
You seek a great fortune, you three who are now in chains. You will find a fortune, though it will not be the one you seek.
But first you must travel a long and difficult road, a road fraught with peril.
You shall see things, wonderful to tell. You shall see a... cow... on the roof of a cotton house. And, oh, so many startlements.
I cannot tell you how long this road shall be, but fear not the ob-stacles in your path, for fate has vouchsafed your reward.
Though the road may wind, yea, your hearts grow weary, still shall ye follow them, even unto your salvation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pukq_XJmM-k
both beta and delta seem hardworking to me, lol.
#alpha...
Not really sure why you started talking about deltas. My comment means that if I were to use the royal I, it would essentially be prescriptive, when I'm stating what's both commonly accepted and right in my viewpoint. By appealing to both of these things, you impact other people, reaching for their significance.
It was because a lot of the people here are deltas. And because both are aristocratic, and because I had just met my conflictor ESTj. I was venting.
I was going comepletely off the description. Apparently Deltas don't like that known? Hrrm. Interesting. For example, if this were the case, if I'd asked to be a delta, you'd have to let me in, but you'd make it so unapealing that I'd leave. I could see why Betas and Deltas wouldn't get along. :S
Cool to see another beta though. I think. Still very, very confused. Probably overthinking it by far. :C
Edit: I need to find my headphones.
Betas and Deltas are either lazy as shit, or running around constantly not getting anything accomplished.
Except I. I 'andle my bidness.
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.
Actually, it is exclusively Betas. Sorry, but unless you are lazy, you can't join the club. Well, not really, more of the latter than the former. For example, today I learned I'm pretty much a ton about what I am, and thus conversely what I am not. And then tomorrow, the future will be bright because of this.
Pretty much Deltas are working for now, Betas are working for the future. Either way, tomato tamato.
Interesting that you are a 6w5, I'm a 5w6. Not too unheard of I don't think. Unsure though. Usually, when I am a 6w5, I am not too happy.
Because all people who don't rush in to agree with the royal him are deltas.
"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
So you'd rather have a world with no future?"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
Last edited by Alomoes; 01-17-2015 at 09:32 PM. Reason: I want to help.
How did you come to that conclusion?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Socionics, of course.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote