Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 44

Thread: Wanting people to feel the way I feel-- socionics significance?

  1. #1
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Wanting people to feel the way I feel-- socionics significance?

    Hello!

    This is an ongoing issue I've been having and I wanted peoples' insights on it.

    I raised this issue in this thread starting with this post and onward.


    Basically the gist of it is:

    I instintually have a hurt reaction towards everything that people try to put down if it's something I'm personally passionate about. It could be as something as simple as a TV show, music, or even socionics.

    I don't know, it's just weird. It's like I want people to be a carbon copy of myself in a way, where the only difference between us is impersonal factors like physical appearance. The person shares my feelings on everything, we can totally be open about our interests to each other and are interests will never be scorned. We share our interests together and it's mutual enjoyment for both of us. I long to have that kind of thing in my relations with others more than just about anything.

    If there's something that interests me, I long to share it with others, to have them be positively receptive to it. However, it's inevitable that not everyone will share every single interest with me or my feelings about things. People are different!!! Thus hurt or disappointment in this way is inevitable. Particularly in my childhood, I would thrust my interests upon others, expect them to respond positively and be greatly disappointed if they didn't.

    Eventually, after receiving enough 'negative feedback' from family, peers, etc. I sort of retreated inward on myself, feeling like hardly anything about myself was safe for sharing with other people. I learned to rely on my self and enjoy my interests *alone* where they are free from any scorn whatsoever. To this day, I still feel like it's hard to really get emotionally close to people for precisely that reason. Because I know emotional conflict will be inevitable and I don't feel well equipped enough to handle it.

    I'm fine with discussion and differing views on impersonal things like scientific theories but when it's personal matters such as the things I enjoy doing for fun or my preferences for TV, music, art, etc., I feel like some of those areas are 'untouchable'- don't insult it or you will pay the price.

    I feel like this is a rather selfish view to take though, because people are inherently different with different opinions on things. Sometimes I feel guilty that I feel that way and want others to be 'just like me.'

    For example, with socionics, I'm okay with discussing the merits as well as the shortcomings of different theories and comparing/contrasting them. I enjoy this very much and I appreciate different views and not hurt by disagreement. But if someone said "socoinics is just garbage and it's not worth spending time on" then I would be hurt by that.
    I don't dare bring up socionics with family members for instance, because they'd likely have that reaction.


    Am I neurotic for having these reactions?

    Other people don't seem to be quite so affected by things like that. You tell them that something they love is crap, and they just laugh and say "Well you're entitled to your opinion" and don't give it any further thought.

    But for me, I can't do that and believe me I've tried. I always take it to heart.

    I think it negatively affects my life and my relations with others.


    Are certain socionics types more prone to this issue with others?

    Just a theory but I think it might be an alpha Fe thing.

    In the +/- functions theory, alpha values -Fe and beta values +Fe. Alpha puts a bigger priority on minimizing negative emotions. So if you have a negative sentiment about something, alpha is inclined to think you should just keep it to yourself if it's going to negatively impact someone else and disrupt the positive emotional atmosphere. I think beta is more about putting all of the feelings out there both positive and negative. There will be more intense positive moments at the expense of more demonstrated negativity.

    Make sense?
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  2. #2
    boom boom boom blackburry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    ESI-Se 6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,269
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    First off, you are so endearing and likable in my book. Somehow this thread makes it even more so.

    Secondly, I feel the same way when people that I'm getting to know don't like the same things as me and vice versa. You might take it more to heart than I do, but it's definitely something I'm aware of and wonder how compatible I am with someone if they put down what I like. I also don't open up to people often either because... of the inevitable feeling of disappointment.


    I'm not sure if it's an alpha thing. I do think gammas and betas tend to not care as much what others thing about their likes/dislikes. I'm just...someone who thinks about it. When I first met ESE he seemed to take it to heart (but it wasn't very apparent) when I didn't immediately love all of his music tastes (80s italian disco). but the more I listen to it...the less I dislike it. And I like him sharing his tastes with me so I voice my opinion when I really like something and just keep it to myself when I don't.
    (also it kinda hurts my feelings that he and his LII ex has/have so much in common when he and I don't.. ).so. agh . I try not to dwell on it too much.
    Last edited by blackburry; 03-16-2015 at 09:34 PM.

  3. #3
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for your kind words @blackburry I needed to hear that and feel like I'm understood.

    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @LIIbrarian, possibly you're hitting aspects of the Agreeableness+Neurotic aspects of the Big 5 in part. It doesn't seem on first glance that you need people to be the same as you, so much as they need to be understanding/accepting of your preferences/not doing so triggers negative emotions you have trouble getting rid of?

    Neuroticism/emotionality tends to involve greater sensitivity, and agreeableness tends to involve the philosophy, more or less, of getting along with people (in the more extraverted cases, also serving them actively).

    I could be off, it could be that you truly need people to feel exactly as you do, but somehow what I write above sounded like the explanation.
    Last edited by chemical; 03-16-2015 at 09:46 PM.

  5. #5
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    @LIIbrarian, possibly you're hitting aspects of the Agreeableness+Neurotic aspects of the Big 5 in part. It doesn't seem on first glance that you need people to be the same as you, so much as they need to be understanding/accepting of your preferences/not doing so triggers negative emotions you have trouble getting rid of?

    Neuroticism/emotionality tends to involve greater sensitivity, and agreeableness tends to involve the philosophy, more or less, of getting along with people (in the more extraverted cases, also serving them actively).

    I could be off, it could be that you truly need people to feel exactly as you do, but somehow what I write above sounded like the explanation.

    They don't have to be the same necessarily, but they must be completely understanding/accepting of them. But it's better of course, if they share preferences because I'm more likely to enjoy their company more.

    I have this insecurity when I'm doing something with others if they're enjoying themselves. I overrfocus on it, and sometimes it gets in the way of my enjoyment. So oftentimes, that's why I just prefer to do things on my own because then I won't have that anxiety.

    But I think I've come to notice that my life would be far more happy and fulfilling if I had someone to share it with who genuinely enjoyed it (and not just saying they do to be nice- I can tell).


    On average, I lean slightly towards agreeable in the Big Five, contrary to what would be predicted for logical/thinking types. I can be disagreeable in terms being skeptical of certain types of information- questioning the validity of it, but in terms of relations I try to present myself as a pleasant agreeable person for the most part.

    Regarding neuroticism, scores tend to hover around the middle on tests. I think I'm calm on the exterior, appearing easygoing about things but internally, sometimes there's like this storm. I think I lean somewhat towards neurotic in reality. I don't like to admit that about myself.


    Any ideas regarding socioinics?
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LIIbrarian
    Any ideas regarding socioinics?
    So first off as a comment on Big 5 correlations, while it's true MBTI T correlates negatively with Big 5 Agreeableness, MBTI T also includes a fair number of traits that aren't related to being logical very directly. Like for instance, being toughminded, and so forth.

    What seems to be going on is that internal to a larger super-dimension of something like the Big 5 are many sub-dimensions, where you can be high on one and low on others. The super-dimensions are getting at broader trends: people of a more ethical bent are more likely to, on average, tend towards valuing accommodating others than those of a logical bent. But the sub-dimensions mark the more specific facets of personality -- it is not in general true that someone of a much more logical than ethical bent is lower in all aspects of agreeableness than someone high in ethics.
    In fact, sometimes ethics types care so much about human matters that they'll be more willing to stir something up (while some logic types will just keep their distance), including venturing into the darker realms. And introverted logic types tend to be lower on altruism but may be high enough on things like straightforwardness, fairness, and so forth -- which all are still aspects of agreeableness.

    Basically while the super-dimensions of T/F and Agreeableness correlate broadly, their exact contents hardly match up exactly enough that you can't score higher on one and lower on another. And as you might notice, even different versions of the Big 5 include different specific traits as part of how they attempt to tap into the super-dimensions, which can affect the exact magnitude of scores.

    I should note that in general, I don't use socionics as religiously to analyze how human traits should be categorized, and use it more for high level remarks about cognitive orientation/orientation of consciousness. That said, going by typical Alpha Quadra portraits, you sound quite compatible with a sensitive Alpha type.

    In other words, you seek a positive accepting atmosphere where negative emotion is avoided, and you are on average more likely to have a difficult time dealing with situations where negative emotion is introduced. There are lots of ways you can describe it...sounds like a common Alpha thing, a 9 thing, a sensitive+agreeable-in-some-ways thing, and so on and so forth.

    Basically socionics' version of thinking/feeling is more going super on steroids in detail into what logic/ethics entails (coming up with all sorts of conceptualizations, different types of logic e.g. Algorithmic/Structural) than really mapping out the broadest possible correlates to either logic or ethics (which is what the Big 5 does).
    So I prefer to keep socionics about the specific insights one can provide into these kinds of issues even if that means it becomes a less "comprehensive" typology, because at the end of the day it's hard to beat a mass-scale endeavor like the Big 5 in terms of being comprehensive.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To give you another example, MBTI's N includes aspects of openness to concepts/ideas and openness to fantasy/imagination. The most imaginative types of all often are not actually very intellectual and go past the realms of intellectualism far into the woods -- a lot of Jung's introverted intuitive dominant prototypes actually are NOT very conceptually intuitive (as were his thinking types). But on average, more broadly speaking someone open to new ways of conceptualizing things is also more open to things in the imaginative realm (as opposed to strict dry fact).

    This is quite analogous to how, while on average, ethics types may tend to score less abysmally on agreeableness than logic types, it's not true that someone whose very soul bleeds ethics may not at some point decide there's things more important to ethics than always accommodating others.
    Just imagine some of the beta EIEs out there and you get a good example of this.

  8. #8
    Contra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    1,405
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm similar to you a bit in what you describe, LIIbrarian. I think looking at Big 5 is a better way of going about analyzing the issue. I know people of all different types who have this problem or don't. If I were to wager a guess there is probably a tendency of people with weak sensing to feel the need to be affirmed in their tastes, but it's only a tendency.
    Last edited by Contra; 03-17-2015 at 02:38 AM.

  9. #9
    darya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    TIM
    EIE-Ni 3w4 sx
    Posts
    2,785
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    LIIbrarian you're such a cute and good-natured person It's interesting the way you identify with your interests, it's a very foreign way of thinking to me. Maybe this has something to do with being E5 or E5 fixed? I also like to have a lot in common with people I hang out with, or at least that they tolerate my interests, but I have zero problem if they tell me something I like is boring/stupid/ lame. When I say to my friends the music they like is shitty, it's more of a playful teasing - a compliment to said person, as it means that I care so much about them, that I can be honest and mean to them . It's not an offense on their person, just on this particular shitty like of theirs. It's also great if people give me a hard time, because I feel like I'm being challenged and not just coddled. But common interests in general are a foundation for every relationship - if you can't relate to another person on any level, then good luck with that.

    Idk if that's a Beta thing, but I connect to people most when either jokingly bitching about the same things or teasing each other in a harsh matter, not that much only discussing our interests and agreeing...that feels flat, it has to go up and down. And i don't really see bitching about something as a negative emotion, on the contrary, it's very fun and uplifting

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I just get the sense @LIIbrarian that you have to separate the issue of whether people share your interests or not from your emotional sensitivity --- people can have different views on things, but FWIW I don't do well with opinionated people who are happy holding strong opinions without sufficient detached justification. And it sounds like you're the same. You're fine discussing theory, and different views on that, no problem -- but when it comes to attacking personal matters, it's not so great. I vastly prefer detached justification -- the more thorough and panoramic a view on a topic, the less room there is for individual disagreement. When people disagree, my view is to go deeper, and attain the more perfect, incontestable solution rather than engage in sparring.

    You seem to be apologetic about having an issue with others having different opinions/interests, but it really seems like the truth is that your real issue is with something more than just having different opinions/interests.

    a) it would be NICE if people shared interests with you
    b) when people not only don't share interests with you, but are corrosively opinionated about your interests, it negatively impacts you

    I think separating a) and b) is very key. Due to negative experiences with b) you seem to have become more defensive about a), wishing people just shared interests (then this whole issue wouldn't arise).

    Pretty sure the most direct explanation is you've got Accommodating+Neurotic tendencies combining here.

  11. #11
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I feel like I need to make up with you a bit,

    It was nothing against you as a person that I think it was a stupid choice for you to spend money just to feed Jack Oliver Aaron's narcissism. I did just have a different opinion.

    Judging by how sensitive you are just because somebody doesn't like what you like, it just further hits home to me that you were a vulnerable person exploited by an asshole. And I know you don't see it that way and that sucks (but it's also ok it can be both right?), but the evidence is lining up in my brain that I'm right.

    You are still an interesting person to me despite the differences we've been having. And I can be the same way, it does feel really good when people just share what you enjoy. I do think that though wearing your heart on the sleeve is just a way for predators to take advantage of you and so I have tried to learn how to balance my strong emotional vantage points. And well I have a lot of good intentions in my rants against assholes... I just hate to see anybody get exploited or used. I'm not a selfish person, unlike a lot of people on this forum. I know that sounded really bad and condescending wow but it's just the truth. I care about good and evil very strongly. I'm not an autistic overly logical retard blowhard like so many people on here, and I am just as arrogant with my heart as they are with their brain. I am genuinely sorry that my moral righteousness has killed another relationship. I am sorry that I hurt your feelings. It is something that I'm trying to work on, but I am not very forgiving to asshole dark narcissists. I've always fought them strongly. I know I'm not perfect myself.

    So I hope we can put that aside us and learn from each other even if we don't always agree. Okay if you want a socionics explanation, it's probably some heavy introverted Fe thing or something.

  12. #12
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    So first off as a comment on Big 5 correlations, while it's true MBTI T correlates negatively with Big 5 Agreeableness, MBTI T also includes a fair number of traits that aren't related to being logical very directly. Like for instance, being toughminded, and so forth.

    What seems to be going on is that internal to a larger super-dimension of something like the Big 5 are many sub-dimensions, where you can be high on one and low on others. The super-dimensions are getting at broader trends: people of a more ethical bent are more likely to, on average, tend towards valuing accommodating others than those of a logical bent. But the sub-dimensions mark the more specific facets of personality -- it is not in general true that someone of a much more logical than ethical bent is lower in all aspects of agreeableness than someone high in ethics.
    In fact, sometimes ethics types care so much about human matters that they'll be more willing to stir something up (while some logic types will just keep their distance), including venturing into the darker realms. And introverted logic types tend to be lower on altruism but may be high enough on things like straightforwardness, fairness, and so forth -- which all are still aspects of agreeableness.

    Basically while the super-dimensions of T/F and Agreeableness correlate broadly, their exact contents hardly match up exactly enough that you can't score higher on one and lower on another. And as you might notice, even different versions of the Big 5 include different specific traits as part of how they attempt to tap into the super-dimensions, which can affect the exact magnitude of scores.

    I should note that in general, I don't use socionics as religiously to analyze how human traits should be categorized, and use it more for high level remarks about cognitive orientation/orientation of consciousness. That said, going by typical Alpha Quadra portraits, you sound quite compatible with a sensitive Alpha type.

    In other words, you seek a positive accepting atmosphere where negative emotion is avoided, and you are on average more likely to have a difficult time dealing with situations where negative emotion is introduced. There are lots of ways you can describe it...sounds like a common Alpha thing, a 9 thing, a sensitive+agreeable-in-some-ways thing, and so on and so forth.

    Basically socionics' version of thinking/feeling is more going super on steroids in detail into what logic/ethics entails (coming up with all sorts of conceptualizations, different types of logic e.g. Algorithmic/Structural) than really mapping out the broadest possible correlates to either logic or ethics (which is what the Big 5 does).
    So I prefer to keep socionics about the specific insights one can provide into these kinds of issues even if that means it becomes a less "comprehensive" typology, because at the end of the day it's hard to beat a mass-scale endeavor like the Big 5 in terms of being comprehensive.
    Regarding agreeableness facets, I found some good info here.

    Trust in others
    People who score high in this area fundamentally assume that most people are fair, honest and have good intentions. They take people at face value and they are willing to forgive and forget.

    High-average for me. I don't blindly trust just anyone but I generally believe are good on a fundamental level. Most people I think have good intentions. I am willing to forgive if someone is generally sorry for their misdeed. I have a hard time forgetting though, particularly past hurts.

    Altruism
    Altruistic people find helping other people genuinely rewarding. Altruistic people find that doing things for others is a form of self-fulfilment rather than self-sacrifice.

    This is the one subscale I tend to score fairly low on. It's not that I don't ever enjoy helping people or don't want to help them. It's just that when someone asks for my help it oftentimes feels like an unwanted imposition on my time. I want my spare time to be my own, to do as I please. In order for it for me to be personally fulfilling, I have to genuinely want to do it and not just because I'm asked to or feel like I should.

    Modesty
    High scorers are unassuming, rather self-effacing and humble. However it is important to understand that they are not necessarily lacking in self-confidence or self-esteem.

    Yep, I score high here. Too high for my own good sometimes (I think sometimes I'd be more successful in the real world if I was a little lower on this). I don't toot my horn enough sometimes, don't give myself enough credit at times. I don't think I necessarily lack self-confidence, per se. It's just that I'm very honest about my abilities. I won't claim skills I don't have to try to be more than what I am.

    Sincerity
    High scorers for this facet see no need for pretence or manipulation when dealing with others and are therefore candid, frank and genuine.

    High score here too. Occasionally I might tell a small 'white lie' to spare someone's feelings but that's about the extent of it. I find too much flattery or pretense to be distasteful.

    Compliance
    Individuals who score high for Compliance dislike confrontations. They are perfectly willing to compromise or to deny their own needs in order to get along with others.

    Typically, this has been my highest scoring subscale on big five tests. I dislike confrontations, to be sure, find them unpleasant. But I will confront others when necessary. I'm good about compromising and generally believe that most rules are good and are there for a reason. (except for some of them in government job bureaucracy, ha ha!). It's true I will sometimes put other's needs ahead of my own for the sake of harmony but I'm not fully satisfied doing that. I pay attention to my own needs too and if I have good reason to believe my own needs are being ignored, I will confront about it. What's most important is the sense of fairness, everyone's needs are met, and no one is meeting their needs at the expense of someone else. I never feel it's okay to do things if someone else is going to hurt in the process.

    Sympathy
    People who score high for this area are tender-hearted and compassionate.

    Average here. I'm not a cold unfeeling robot but I'm not a bleeding heart either. I think sometimes I'm compassionate on a more intellectual level rather than a true emotional level. For instance if a colleague says their loved one dies- I understand that they are going through a difficult time and offer my support but emotionally, I may not always feel their pain. Because personally, it doesn't affect me- I've never met the person who died.


    On the whole, I do tend towards agreeableness, scoring high on 4 subscales, average on one, and low on one.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  13. #13
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    To give you another example, MBTI's N includes aspects of openness to concepts/ideas and openness to fantasy/imagination. The most imaginative types of all often are not actually very intellectual and go past the realms of intellectualism far into the woods -- a lot of Jung's introverted intuitive dominant prototypes actually are NOT very conceptually intuitive (as were his thinking types). But on average, more broadly speaking someone open to new ways of conceptualizing things is also more open to things in the imaginative realm (as opposed to strict dry fact).

    This is quite analogous to how, while on average, ethics types may tend to score less abysmally on agreeableness than logic types, it's not true that someone whose very soul bleeds ethics may not at some point decide there's things more important to ethics than always accommodating others.
    Just imagine some of the beta EIEs out there and you get a good example of this.
    I also score high on openness overall and see myself as both highly intellectual as well as imaginative. I did score low on the emotionality subscale though. I think because I'm not totally open to some emotional experiences because I fear being overwhelmed by it.

    Regarding beta EIEs I notice that some, not all, have strong views that they feel 'must be said' regardless of how anyone might feel. And they see no need to apologize for coming on too strong either if they offended someone. The less healthy ones, I think can be this way.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  14. #14
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Contra View Post
    I'm similar to you a bit in what you describe, LIIbrarian. I think looking at Big 5 is a better way of going about analyzing the issue. I know people of all different types who have this problem or don't. If I were to wager a guess there is probably a tendency of people with weak sensing to feel the need to be affirmed in their tastes, but it's only a tendency.
    LII has Si mobilizing, I wonder if this plays some role too. We want to be good at this function and be seen as such. I love being told that I have good aesthetic taste. And I'm hurt when I'm told I don't.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  15. #15
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darya View Post
    LIIbrarian you're such a cute and good-natured person It's interesting the way you identify with your interests, it's a very foreign way of thinking to me. Maybe this has something to do with being E5 or E5 fixed? I also like to have a lot in common with people I hang out with, or at least that they tolerate my interests, but I have zero problem if they tell me something I like is boring/stupid/ lame. When I say to my friends the music they like is shitty, it's more of a playful teasing - a compliment to said person, as it means that I care so much about them, that I can be honest and mean to them . It's not an offense on their person, just on this particular shitty like of theirs. It's also great if people give me a hard time, because I feel like I'm being challenged and not just coddled. But common interests in general are a foundation for every relationship - if you can't relate to another person on any level, then good luck with that.

    Idk if that's a Beta thing, but I connect to people most when either jokingly bitching about the same things or teasing each other in a harsh matter, not that much only discussing our interests and agreeing...that feels flat, it has to go up and down. And i don't really see bitching about something as a negative emotion, on the contrary, it's very fun and uplifting
    It could be a beta thing, or an Se valuing thing to have a little aggression or challenge like that in a relationship. Personally, I find that uncomfortable and foreign to me. I can jokingly bitch about something, but only if I've 'felt out' the person enough to know they will likely agree with me or at least not be offended. Sometimes, I have difficulty telling the difference between harsh teasing and truly being mean.

    I do alot of playful teasing with others though, but it never gets to the level of harshness. It's more lighthearted, goofy, silly, Alpha-ish I suppose. I think it lacks real edge sometimes. Maybe that's why some people think it's boring or superficial.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  16. #16
    darya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    TIM
    EIE-Ni 3w4 sx
    Posts
    2,785
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LIIbrarian View Post
    It could be a beta thing, or an Se valuing thing to have a little aggression or challenge like that in a relationship. Personally, I find that uncomfortable and foreign to me. I can jokingly bitch about something, but only if I've 'felt out' the person enough to know they will likely agree with me or at least not be offended. Sometimes, I have difficulty telling the difference between harsh teasing and truly being mean.

    I do alot of playful teasing with others though, but it never gets to the level of harshness. It's more lighthearted, goofy, silly, Alpha-ish I suppose. I think it lacks real edge sometimes. Maybe that's why some people think it's boring or superficial.
    This maybe shows that Beta ethical types can be harsher than Alpha logical types?

  17. #17
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    I feel like I need to make up with you a bit,

    It was nothing against you as a person that I think it was a stupid choice for you to spend money just to feed Jack Oliver Aaron's narcissism. I did just have a different opinion.

    Judging by how sensitive you are just because somebody doesn't like what you like, it just further hits home to me that you were a vulnerable person exploited by an asshole. And I know you don't see it that way and that sucks (but it's also ok it can be both right?), but the evidence is lining up in my brain that I'm right.

    You are still an interesting person to me despite the differences we've been having. And I can be the same way, it does feel really good when people just share what you enjoy. I do think that though wearing your heart on the sleeve is just a way for predators to take advantage of you and so I have tried to learn how to balance my strong emotional vantage points. And well I have a lot of good intentions in my rants against assholes... I just hate to see anybody get exploited or used. I'm not a selfish person, unlike a lot of people on this forum. I know that sounded really bad and condescending wow but it's just the truth. I care about good and evil very strongly. I'm not an autistic overly logical retard blowhard like so many people on here, and I am just as arrogant with my heart as they are with their brain. I am genuinely sorry that my moral righteousness has killed another relationship. I am sorry that I hurt your feelings. It is something that I'm trying to work on, but I am not very forgiving to asshole dark narcissists. I've always fought them strongly. I know I'm not perfect myself.

    So I hope we can put that aside us and learn from each other even if we don't always agree. Okay if you want a socionics explanation, it's probably some heavy introverted Fe thing or something.
    Apology accepted.

    I still don't think JOA is an asshole though, and I don't feel exploited. Just because someone charges a little bit of money for a service doesn't make them an asshole or out to exploit others. I see him typing others as a service he provides and his job.

    JOA is someone I greatly respect and I know that's not a very popular opinion around here. We might just have to agree to disagree on that.

    I'd rather not have this thread go into that territory.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  18. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Like darya suggested, I think the correlations are broad rather than universal somehow... you'll on average see more logical types who just completely miss if someone is a sweet, nice person, and so forth, while ethical types more consistently may pick up on such things and honor them, but Jung was quite clear (and I tend to agree) that being a feeling type involves being able and inclined to make a wide variety of feeling judgments with nuance and appropriateness, rather than deflecting negative feelings.

    It's also generally true that being on the sensitive/neurotic side combined with a decent agreeableness tendency goes with noticing nice, well meaning people....even if one isn't an ethical type.

    I think it is quite true that especially in the alpha philosophy of avoiding negative emotion, you're going to get more detached reasoning from logic types than harsh sentiment.
    In other words, more a lack of sentiment period than an inclusion of harsh sentiment.

    Anyway, socionics is getting into the nitty and gritty of all the types of logic types out there, and all the types of ethics types out there, and this is reflecting that the five factors of the Big 5 most definitely have subfactors, which cohere more than do the superfactors.
    Last edited by chemical; 03-18-2015 at 02:38 AM.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And basically the combination of individual subfactors and traits is what you see in the quadra portraits. One should note that personality dimensions studied by the Big 5 are more normally distributed than bimodally, which indicates that even if someone has some very pronounced differentiated tendencies, they may not be picked up in their placement in the overall dimension -- and must be more specifically studied.

    I mean, Jungian typology/socionics is literally going into something more specific than even a facet-level categorization. Which is why, again, I use it more as a way to make high level conceptual remarks than for mass sorting purposes.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the way to look at it is beta is Se-valuing+Fe, and to note that Fe, in Gulenko notation is E, i.e. emotion, i.e. the component of feeling-judgment which moves you through arousal (the dynamic variety). This Fe along with Se means a seeking out of that arousal, in tandem with the "moving" aims of Se, i.e. to influence objects (involved) rather than simply note their potential.

    Si is an introverted form of consciousness, overall more about the passive, less involved, subjective impressions of sensory experience, and by the way, in some versions Si is sensitive to emotive content, simply that it is not responsible for the production of human sentiment (that is a hallmark of a rational creature), well-defined attitudes towards things...but it is responsible for reactions to things.
    This creates more of a tendency to note if the surroundings agree with one's constitution on an instinctual level than contributing to the formation of anything like a developed ethical agenda.

    Negatively signed Fe + Si might be seen as emphasizing that tailoring the arousal of objects to their constitutions, so as not to aim to change their kinetic energy so much as keep them involved in the overall grand scheme of energy exchanges -- honor their constitutions and their relative position within the said scheme/sphere.

  21. #21
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Like darya suggested, I think the correlations are broad rather than universal somehow... you'll on average see more logical types who just completely miss if someone is a sweet, nice person, and so forth, while ethical types more consistently may pick up on such things and honor them, but Jung was quite clear (and I tend to agree) that being a feeling type involves being able and inclined to make a wide variety of feeling judgments with nuance and appropriateness, rather than deflecting negative feelings.

    It's also generally true that being on the sensitive/neurotic side combined with a decent agreeableness tendency goes with noticing nice, well meaning people....even if one isn't an ethical type.

    I think it is quite true that especially in the alpha philosophy of avoiding negative emotion, you're going to get more detached reasoning from logic types than harsh sentiment.
    In other words, more a lack of sentiment period than an inclusion of harsh sentiment.

    Anyway, socionics is getting into the nitty and gritty of all the types of logic types out there, and all the types of ethics types out there, and this is reflecting that the five factors of the Big 5 most definitely have subfactors, which cohere more than do the superfactors.
    One thing to note intuitives and sensors approach human relations from a entirely different view of interaction.

  22. #22
    Esaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    878
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am pretty sure it is pan-human basic instinct to like when people share your opinions and tastes and it being a negative when they don't. Then there is a need to belong and be accepted.
    So one theory would be that you have stronger reaction on the account of having had less friendships with strong shared fun and fandom like kids and teens often have.

  23. #23
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Esaman View Post
    I am pretty sure it is pan-human basic instinct to like when people share your opinions and tastes and it being a negative when they don't. Then there is a need to belong and be accepted.
    So one theory would be that you have stronger reaction on the account of having had less friendships with strong shared fun and fandom like kids and teens often have.
    I did have some such friendships but probably not enough.

    I've just learned that if I isolate myself from others, no one can 'take my fun away.' Which is rather ironic considering that what I really wanted when younger was more connection, not less.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  24. #24
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's another thought. If someone doesn't like something I do, I think a large part of why it bothers me is that my brain can't come up with a good logical reason *WHY*. For instance, I'm listening to what I perceive to be the MOST AWESOME PIECE OF MUSIC EVER. To me, it's moving, it's sublime, it's perfect in every way. Then someone else hates it and says it's a piece of crap. I am literally puzzled as to the underlying reason why someone could think totally different. I know beauty is subjective and peoples' brains probably perceive aestethics differently but that explanation doesn't seem satisfying enough to me. I want more depth of explanation. Why it is absolute perfect to me and absolutely flawed to someone else? What's the true underlying reason? What is really going on in the brain? Why can people have such different preferences to begin with? Why aren't we more similar in regards to preferences? By understanding that, I could understand peoples' (and my own) idiosyncratic preferences that don't appear to have any rhyme or reason to them and not get so 'shook up' inside when someone vehemently disagrees with me.

    Am I the only one who ever thinks these thoughts?
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  25. #25
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Idk maybe i am one of the few ppl who embraces people's diversity of tastes. Of course i get excited over a shared taste or interest but i also fond it very interesting and fun when i come across ppl having different tastes from mine. Sometimes it even grows on me as well! Life would be so boring if everyone liked the same things...
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  26. #26
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suz View Post
    Idk maybe i am one of the few ppl who embraces people's diversity of tastes. Of course i get excited over a shared taste or interest but i also fond it very interesting and fun when i come across ppl having different tastes from mine. Sometimes it even grows on me as well! Life would be so boring if everyone liked the same things...
    I too like discovering new music, movies, art, whatever from things I normally never would have considered on my own. I often find my tastes expanding.
    that

    What about the opposite- there's something I absolutely hate that other people just love. That seems to happen to me less than the opposite but it has happened. Again, I will try to investigate why that is case. To understand where they are coming from. Sometimes I can even begin to appreciate it to some extent even if I never become a fan of it. Some things I have even grown to like if I didn't like it before. Not everything though. Some things I'll probably won't like no matter what, but at least I tried. Doing that helps me better to relate to people and understand where they are coming from. I don't think enough people try that though. They are like "I hate this, it sucks and act their opinion is some indisputable fact."
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  27. #27
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LIIbrarian View Post
    They are like "I hate this, it sucks and act their opinion is some indisputable fact."
    Tastes will be tastes
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  28. #28
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i tend to fear offending people by rejecting their interests, especially if we're new to one another. i can also be really horribly selfish about my interests with people i'm comfortable with, wanting to share even if they don't like them (i feel really terrible about this and i'm trying to stop) because i just want to i guess try to share part of myself through that medium or something? i usually don't feel hurt if others don't like what i like... although i guess there have been a few occasions.

    what i would probably love the most would be being able to just say negative things about one another's interests, like "i hate that!" where it doesn't matter or cause any harm to the relationship, and we can affectionately hate some of each other's things... i'm often afraid to get to that point except with my immediate family.

    and then i worry about being too blind about the impact of just stating i don't like something because i think my mom in particular can be hurt if someone else doesn't like what she likes, thinking something is wrong with her for having the "wrong interests" or something. she thinks that other people's opinions are more valuable than her own, and i know how that works because i have a fading shadow of it from her. it hurts thinking about what that means for her, but the only person who can uproot it, is her. this is why i don't focus on it much because then it just causes me pain and still doesn't help anything.

  29. #29
    dugga dugga dun Narc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    Ni-ENTj 8w9 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,288
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    One thing to note intuitives and sensors approach human relations from a entirely different view of interaction.
    Elaborate?

  30. #30
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Narc View Post
    Elaborate?
    Irrationals are not rationals.

    Chemicals comments only really addressed Ethical/Logical. However Irrationals types (Base) take a very different view on social interaction, which is more instinctual/gut/intuition based.

  31. #31
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    Irrationals are not rationals.

    Chemicals comments only really addressed Ethical/Logical. However Irrationals types (Base) take a very different view on social interaction, which is more instinctual/gut/intuition based.
    Could you explain how that relates to the content in this post?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebird View Post
    Yes, to answer your question, Librarian. Thinking back, if there are books, music etc.. that I like a lot, and people insult them, I can get offended by it.

    For example, on another site, I saw people going on about The Catcher in the Rye, and how whiney Holden Caufield is. I really like the book and Caufield's character, so I started to get offended about it. I start forming opinions about these people from what they were saying about the book and the character. I also ran into a review about the book that was trashing J.D. Salinger and decided right off that I didn't like the woman who wrote the article. There are other things too, but that's just one example.

    It's not exactly wanting people to feel the way I do, but getting offended by things that others trash that I like. It's honestly not hard to offend me, though. I get offended more than I show.
    I like that book too. I do think the main character was kind of whiny but that was kind of the point of the book in the first place? I didn't mind his whininess though, I found him mostly relateable.

    Sometimes I'll start making negative judgements towards people who are judgemental and then I feel bad for being hypocritical about it. After all I guess I was being judgemental too just in a different way.


    It's stupid that I get offended over things though that wouldn't even be an issue for most people. I think it stems from the fact that I have a naturally sensitive personalitiy to begin with but also that I didn't always get alot of positive reinforcement for my interests when growing up. My interests were kind of odd, not the types of things my peers were into. Also my parents would sometimes put down my interests. I'd want them to watch a certain TV show with me and they sounded interested and then suddenly in the middle of the show they announce it's really stupid and just get up and leave. Or when I listened to music it was "turn that racket off!" Or when I showed them some project I did from school and it was obvious they were just feigning interest.

    I do wonder though if some types are more strongly identified with their interests. Someone suggested enneagram 5's. Or perhaps obstinate types (reinin dichotomy). Or strong introverts maybe. Or aspies. Other people don't care as much because if someone has different interests they likely do one of two things: Bend to the other person's interests and forget their own. They don't mind though because they just want to be with the other person. Or conversely, they push their interests on others. Confident that they can change their mind about something, that they will come to enjoy it. Or just insist they come along to the movie with them even if they are not interested in seeing it, because they are more concerned with their enjoyment than the other person.

    I'm not comfortable with either of these mindsets. I don't want to sacrifice my interests for another person. My interests are an important part of my life, of who I am. I also don't want to push my interests on another person. That just seems selfish and I don't want to make the other person miserable. What's the point of insisting someone do something with you if the other person isn't likely to enjoy it.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  32. #32
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suz View Post
    Tastes will be tastes
    I know that. It still doesn't explain what I really want to know. Why people have such different tastes in the first place.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  33. #33
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LIIbrarian View Post
    I do wonder though if some types are more strongly identified with their interests. Someone suggested enneagram 5's. Or perhaps obstinate types (reinin dichotomy). Or strong introverts maybe. Or aspies. Other people don't care as much because if someone has different interests they likely do one of two things: Bend to the other person's interests and forget their own. They don't mind though because they just want to be with the other person. Or conversely, they push their interests on others. Confident that they can change their mind about something, that they will come to enjoy it. Or just insist they come along to the movie with them even if they are not interested in seeing it, because they are more concerned with their enjoyment than the other person.

    I'm not comfortable with either of these mindsets. I don't want to sacrifice my interests for another person. My interests are an important part of my life, of who I am. I also don't want to push my interests on another person. That just seems selfish and I don't want to make the other person miserable. What's the point of insisting someone do something with you if the other person isn't likely to enjoy it.
    i think my interests are perhaps less important to me... i see them as things that accompany me throughout parts of my life... some fall away, others stay longer... but they are in a sense transient and perhaps helping me right now with something in my mind or externally... i have a high ability to set my interests aside and try out someone else's and i think it's mainly because like you said, i just want to spend time with them. i don't care what we do if the closeness is there. however, i work both ways, because i can want to share my interests and sometimes my mental world is really overriding such that i don't even see anyone else's. i think that probably i think it's important to have a reasonable amount of mutual interests with the other person in the end, as that is most ideal. thinking about my extended family, i often sit quietly as they go on about hiking and clothing and how warm or cold they are and what items helped and... i try to be interested, but i get really bored, and i selfishly just start retreating into my mind and i know they will know when i do that but i feel like i can't hang on. they are my family though and that's important to me but it makes me realize that some common something is needed in relationships. or, as another example, my mom dated someone for a while who she shares very few interests with. at the time she was in a really bad place and i guess that's why she accepted the relationship even though it obviously wasn't her cup of tea. but the point is that my mom and that guy have like nothing to talk about with each other because they really don't share enough interests, are in very different places in life, aren't looking for the same things, and are basically really incompatible.

    maybe i simply see myself as irrational in this area as in the other person can get me to align better with their activity preferences to a fairly significant degree... although with age this may be becoming less the case? (i don't know yet) and i want to be bendable to some extent. but i mean part of it is that it's an experiment of trying it out and sometimes experiments don't work... i've just never gotten that far with one to get an end result... usually the experiment fails for the other person before it fails for me... and oh, that may say something, but probably not as much as it seems to. i guess i feel that i need to try to go with the other person if i can and i like it when i can actually "keep up"? but i often feel i fail to. so in the meantime i have my interests to tide me through the time apart from human society. i've learned that investing in my inner world is how to cope with loneliness and that will probably drive more of my singular focus on my mental world, but i know it can be reversed by the other person, perhaps... maybe... it's a theory.

  34. #34
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Like darya suggested, I think the correlations are broad rather than universal somehow... you'll on average see more logical types who just completely miss if someone is a sweet, nice person, and so forth, while ethical types more consistently may pick up on such things and honor them, but Jung was quite clear (and I tend to agree) that being a feeling type involves being able and inclined to make a wide variety of feeling judgments with nuance and appropriateness, rather than deflecting negative feelings.

    It's also generally true that being on the sensitive/neurotic side combined with a decent agreeableness tendency goes with noticing nice, well meaning people....even if one isn't an ethical type.

    I think it is quite true that especially in the alpha philosophy of avoiding negative emotion, you're going to get more detached reasoning from logic types than harsh sentiment.
    In other words, more a lack of sentiment period than an inclusion of harsh sentiment.

    Anyway, socionics is getting into the nitty and gritty of all the types of logic types out there, and all the types of ethics types out there, and this is reflecting that the five factors of the Big 5 most definitely have subfactors, which cohere more than do the superfactors.
    Quote Originally Posted by LIIbrarian View Post
    Could you explain how that relates to the content in this post?
    I should be sleeping but I will try.

    Irrational types(irrational doms) are not the same as rational types(rational doms) as far as this is concerned.

    I don't really know if someone is sweet nice whatever and frankly it doesn't matter, I get a impression of a person and that's it, and I know many things about it from just that impression, whether we can be friends, whether it's worth my time to talk to them etc. And this impression, right or wrong is what influences the interaction. I'm often right and I'm often wrong and frankly, it doesn't really matter as far as how I think about it. It has it's consequences but also many benefits.

    Irrationals simply don't deal with things like rationals and their impression guide rationalizations which explains those impressions after the fact more or less, however the irrational perceptions dominate and it has no rational basis. Now rational assessments can go against it, and depend on the type can try to counter the irrational assessment, IEE's are often very open to people who their impressions might warn them against due to a combo of negativist/divergent thinking and people valuing, but this is in service to the impression.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    FWIW @mu4, @LIIbrarian, my memory is my post was addressing more the logic/ethics and Agreeableness-in-Big-5 relation/difference. So yes, my point was probably separate entirely from sensation/intuitive types.

    Mu's description is more or less how Jung also described intuitive dominants in social relations -- when the hunch says the person is good, they seem entirely good, and when it says they are evil, they seem so as well.
    Irrational functions are more impressionistic.

  36. #36
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,293
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it is normal to have such reactions, especially if its something you have a vested interest in.

    I find that I'm hesitant to bring up my interests to others for fear that they may find me too eccentric or weird. I don't exactly have a line of people waiting to be my friend. I'll devote hours to learning about something that interests me and I will want to share that with someone, but the odds that they too will be interested in the subject is slim to none.

    I think I tend to get more anxious about being pigeonholed by others by what I bring up for discussion. Like the other day, when I was discussing conservative thought and people start misinterpreting that as meaning I am a conservative, which is neither right or wrong. I see both conservatives and progressives as having rational ideas and they both have their strengths and weaknesses, but when I mention the strengths and weaknesses of progressives in front of a progressive, they tend to only hear the weaknesses and assume I'm a conservative. That is frustrating to me.

    Also, take country music. As an adolescent I absolutely hated country music. But, once I was married, my wife developed a taste for country music. This should have been grounds for a divorce*, but instead I became more open to it. I found that there was a fun side to country music that I ended up liking. As long as the song wasn't about God, the Bible, or senselessly bombing countries, I was good with it. Take this song for instance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtMy5IBmX7E, or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwRrKaq0IyY. it is just a fun song that makes you want to enjoy life. Now someone may see that me posting this song says something very specific about me, that I am some country bumpkin, or a conservative, or that I'm an alcoholic, or that I an avid fisherman, but none of these are true. The same can be said of anything I bring up. That is frustrating!

    So sometimes I get upset about what people think of my interests, but this is a combination of needing to fit in a little, trying to avoid conflict and being misunderstood.

    *kidding!

  37. #37
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    I should be sleeping but I will try.

    Irrational types(irrational doms) are not the same as rational types(rational doms) as far as this is concerned.

    I don't really know if someone is sweet nice whatever and frankly it doesn't matter, I get a impression of a person and that's it, and I know many things about it from just that impression, whether we can be friends, whether it's worth my time to talk to them etc. And this impression, right or wrong is what influences the interaction. I'm often right and I'm often wrong and frankly, it doesn't really matter as far as how I think about it. It has it's consequences but also many benefits.

    Irrationals simply don't deal with things like rationals and their impression guide rationalizations which explains those impressions after the fact more or less, however the irrational perceptions dominate and it has no rational basis. Now rational assessments can go against it, and depend on the type can try to counter the irrational assessment, IEE's are often very open to people who their impressions might warn them against due to a combo of negativist/divergent thinking and people valuing, but this is in service to the impression.
    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    FWIW @mu4, @LIIbrarian, my memory is my post was addressing more the logic/ethics and Agreeableness-in-Big-5 relation/difference. So yes, my point was probably separate entirely from sensation/intuitive types.

    Mu's description is more or less how Jung also described intuitive dominants in social relations -- when the hunch says the person is good, they seem entirely good, and when it says they are evil, they seem so as well.
    Irrational functions are more impressionistic.
    I'm kind of impressionistic when judging the 'goodness' or 'badness' or people but I don't think it's so black and white. People are good in these respects but not those. People are bad in these respects but not those. I still get an overall impression of someone's 'goodness' or 'badness' I guess it's sort of like some scorecard but there's no actual number. People can move up or move down on it depending on their actions or what they do/say.

    Sometimes bad impressions of someone will stick in my mind and they are hard to get rid of. If someone says or does something hurtful, it can stick in my mind a long time afterwards even if I know they are basically a 'good person.' Hence, it's far easier for me to forgive than to forget. I wonder if this is more of a negativist thing, since I tend to focus on negatives about someone at the expense of the positives.

    Which might be why too if someone doesn't like something I do, it's like they move down on my scorecard. In a relationship, I'll fantasize about various wonderful things we could be doing together. I enjoy going to the theatre and watching plays but not everyone does. I'll fantasize going to the theatre with someone and if that person doesn't like the theatre, then that possibility is eliminated, the fantasy is destroyed. Because I'm more negativistic, I'll tend to focus on the eliminated possibility, never mind the fact that there are still 9,432 other wonderful things we could do together that we both enjoy.

    I also wonder if irrational types are more prone to get into bad relationships because they are more impressionistic and more likely to see people as "all good" or "all bad." Would they are more prone to get 'hoodwinked' or let down later because at first the people seems wonderful in every conceivable way?
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  38. #38
    boom boom boom blackburry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    ESI-Se 6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,269
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chips and underwear View Post
    I'm kind of impressionistic when judging the 'goodness' or 'badness' or people but I don't think it's so black and white. People are good in these respects but not those. People are bad in these respects but not those. I still get an overall impression of someone's 'goodness' or 'badness' I guess it's sort of like some scorecard but there's no actual number. People can move up or move down on it depending on their actions or what they do/say.

    Sometimes bad impressions of someone will stick in my mind and they are hard to get rid of. If someone says or does something hurtful, it can stick in my mind a long time afterwards even if I know they are basically a 'good person.' Hence, it's far easier for me to forgive than to forget. I wonder if this is more of a negativist thing, since I tend to focus on negatives about someone at the expense of the positives.

    Which might be why too if someone doesn't like something I do, it's like they move down on my scorecard. In a relationship, I'll fantasize about various wonderful things we could be doing together. I enjoy going to the theatre and watching plays but not everyone does. I'll fantasize going to the theatre with someone and if that person doesn't like the theatre, then that possibility is eliminated, the fantasy is destroyed. Because I'm more negativistic, I'll tend to focus on the eliminated possibility, never mind the fact that there are still 9,432 other wonderful things we could do together that we both enjoy.


    I also wonder if irrational types are more prone to get into bad relationships because they are more impressionistic and more likely to see people as "all good" or "all bad." Would they are more prone to get 'hoodwinked' or let down later because at first the people seems wonderful in every conceivable way?

    I do this too


    Actually my view of people is pretty similar too. Occasionally though when it's pretty clear that someone and I will not really ever see eye to eye on anything (or if they're mean to me) though... I just write off my losses and will (try to) avoid the person indefinitely even if I still think that they might be an alright person...mostly for my own sake. I'm pretty awkward in the first place but adding in mutual dislike makes it so much worse.




    I rarely tell people about myself or interests in real life. As Jimmers stated, I disliked being pigeonholed for things that I like. and often others do not share my enthusiasm for certain topics or movie/music genres.

    -- "Sometimes, I have difficulty telling the difference between harsh teasing and truly being mean. " I also relate to this... and while I will tease someone and generally like to be teased...if it turns into harsh/bitchy, I distance myself a bit. I've noticed this from pretty much ever Beta I've interacted with.

    The other day in class I joked that I looked like a homeless person to one person. An SLE heard this and for the rest of the day said things like, " GODDD, (insert name here), Why do always have to dress like a homeless person?" It was funny the first time. She did it the rest of the day with different variations to the point it made me fairly uncomfortable and I wasn't sure if she thought it was still funny (I laughed pretty heartily the first time) or if she was just being mean.



    Also- this paragraph I related to a lot.
    Quote Originally Posted by chips and underwear View Post
    Here's another thought. If someone doesn't like something I do, I think a large part of why it bothers me is that my brain can't come up with a good logical reason *WHY*. For instance, I'm listening to what I perceive to be the MOST AWESOME PIECE OF MUSIC EVER. To me, it's moving, it's sublime, it's perfect in every way. Then someone else hates it and says it's a piece of crap. I am literally puzzled as to the underlying reason why someone could think totally different. I know beauty is subjective and peoples' brains probably perceive aestethics differently but that explanation doesn't seem satisfying enough to me. I want more depth of explanation. Why it is absolute perfect to me and absolutely flawed to someone else? What's the true underlying reason? What is really going on in the brain? Why can people have such different preferences to begin with? Why aren't we more similar in regards to preferences? By understanding that, I could understand peoples' (and my own) idiosyncratic preferences that don't appear to have any rhyme or reason to them and not get so 'shook up' inside when someone vehemently disagrees with me.

    Am I the only one who ever thinks these thoughts?
    I often want to know "why"... Why I like or dislike something, why others do. The beat? Because it reminds them (or myself) of something? The lyrics? The texture?

    I appreciate being exposed to other music/movies/art/food, even if I find I dislike it. (which I believe I've said before: but on the occasion I dislike something I generally like to keep it to myself unless I'm asked my opinion).



    I was the blacksheep in my family and often at school growing up so I would not be surprised if I'm like this due to those experiences.
    I also relate highly to E5 (though I believe ...my primary etype is 6...also due to childhood experiences etc).




    --I also have an extreme dislike for when people present their opinion as facts. Which I've caught myself doing a few times
    Last edited by blackburry; 03-28-2015 at 11:33 PM.

  39. #39
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmers View Post
    Also, take country music. As an adolescent I absolutely hated country music. But, once I was married, my wife developed a taste for country music. This should have been grounds for a divorce*, but instead I became more open to it. I found that there was a fun side to country music that I ended up liking. As long as the song wasn't about God, the Bible, or senselessly bombing countries, I was good with it. Take this song for instance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtMy5IBmX7E, or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwRrKaq0IyY. it is just a fun song that makes you want to enjoy life. Now someone may see that me posting this song says something very specific about me, that I am some country bumpkin, or a conservative, or that I'm an alcoholic, or that I an avid fisherman, but none of these are true. The same can be said of anything I bring up. That is frustrating!

    *kidding!
    Funny you mention that because I saw a personal ad that explicited said "NO COUNTRY." The person could have been otherwise great but because you like country music, you're eliminated. There was another personal ad that said "FOOTBALL FANS NEED NOT APPLY."

    I'm thinking, regardless of whether or not you like these things, mentioning these in a personal ad makes you look like a judgemental douchebag. It doesn't make a good impression. It makes me wonder if they are that picky and intolerant about 'little things' like that, how are they going to be about things like politics, race, or religion.

    I suppose I have to give them a couple of points for being honest though, and telling you upfront what they don't want. I guess better to know it wouldn't work right away until you're a couple of dates into the relationship. It still makes me wonder why they have such a problem with country music or football that it needs to be stated in a personal ad. Did they have a bad experience in a past relationship where someone talked about these things nonstop?
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  40. #40
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackburry View Post
    I do this too


    Actually my view of people is pretty similar too. Occasionally though when it's pretty clear that someone and I will not really ever see eye to eye on anything (or if they're mean to me) though... I just write off my losses and will (try to) avoid the person indefinitely even if I still think that they might be an alright person...mostly for my own sake. I'm pretty awkward in the first place but adding in mutual dislike makes it so much worse.




    I rarely tell people about myself or interests in real life. As Jimmers stated, I disliked being pigeonholed for things that I like. and often others do not share my enthusiasm for certain topics or movie/music genres.

    -- "Sometimes, I have difficulty telling the difference between harsh teasing and truly being mean. " I also relate to this... and while I will tease someone and generally like to be teased...if it turns into harsh/bitchy, I distance myself a bit. I've noticed this from pretty much ever Beta I've interacted with.

    The other day in class I joked that I looked like a homeless person to one person. An SLE heard this and for the rest of the day said things like, " GODDD, (insert name here), Why do always have to dress like a homeless person?" It was funny the first time. She did it the rest of the day with different variations to the point it made me fairly uncomfortable and I wasn't sure if she thought it was still funny (I laughed pretty heartily the first time) or if she was just being mean.
    There's definitely a difference between being a good person in the general sense of the word and being a good person for a serious relationship. There are many good people in the world that I probably wouldn't be very compatible with in a long-term relationship. I don't tend to reject people relationship wise if they have different interests but I may find myself rejecting them (in my mind at least) if they seem to LACK certain interests. Maybe that's more of a negativist thing, I'm not sure. I complain about people being judgemental based on someone's interests but I guess in a way I'm being judgemental for someone's LACK of interest. So in a way it's the opposite side of the same coin.

    There are things other then having interests in common that are definitely important for a long-term relationship. Similar attitudes towards having children, how one handles money, certain personality traits, etc. Someone that seriously wanted to have 10 children, who can't save a penny would probably be a deal-breaker for me.


    And, yes, I hate revealing personal interests if there is any risk of being wrongly pigeonholed for it. I wonder if aristocratic types are more prone to pigeonholing like that than democratic types, not sure though. I'm not trying to put down aristocratic quadras because I know there's plenty of variation and the Reinin dichotomy definitions are pretty shaky as is.

    Regarding the humor example you gave, it seems like betas are more prone to that, and again, not trying to put down beta. But I do wonder if its the combination of valued Fe+Se. Joking around to create a particular emotional atmosphere (Fe) but with rather harsh, blunt humor (Se). Not all betas are like that of course.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •