Using Type for Growth

[squark]

.

[Vespertine]

That's something I have been wondering about.
I wonder about that every other day.
Am I fucking delusional?
The way I think, how I process things seems so distant from what I am like from the exterior. I don't fit in any type that well when I think about it. Yesterday, I thought myself SEI. Read irrational types do that, be unsure and able to fit themselves anywhere. Doesn't matter.
I can make arguments for every introverted types and Ne leads.
My first typing was the gentle IEE. Jesus type, sounds great. Except it doesn't.
It came from a test and I didn't know what a function was so I just accepted it.
Sometimes, types come with a burden more than anything, mostly on a typing forum, where one is looking for themselves, trying to find a place, learning.
The burden of proof, the burden of exposure, the burden of stereotypes...
Sometimes, it's a war.
Waging war because what people say sounds so wrong and coming out of nowhere. No arguments, no explaination, "you is that", and that pisses me off.
I keep saying the same stuff, the stuff that aren't too personal, talking superficial as I don't want anyone to know as much as socionics describes in types about me. It doesn't help anyone grow.
It's such an intrusion, to the point I consider it obscene.
A deeply perverted system of intimacy violation.
Perhaps, what one say and do may not be in accordance on purpose, perhaps I do. Perhaps, I don't.

Truth is I keep most of my deepest finding to myself because fuck off.

[Bertrand]

yeah self development is not merely a play on words. I think he was spot on to say its a religious experience. the problem is people don't look at type that way at all. in fact they look at it as a way to get away from having that religious experience, and this is where the play on words comes in. in essence, if you define your strong side as being your weak side, you engage in fruitful self development by default. in other words, all the stuff you "should" be working on, you are, because you set yourself up by definition to be in the process of meaningful self development. in this way one never has to engage in meaningful self development because meaningful self development is nothing deeper than what one is already doing merely by having assigned oneself a type. this is essentially a form of never having to deal with one's own genuine weakness and continues down the same path as always, as if experiencing typology revealed nothing new to oneself. but here's the thing, people think this is how it should be on a deep level [1]. an aspect of type is their relationship to type itself with some types having a greater or lesser capacity to, simply by way of a theory, spark personal development. in other words, there exists a large swath of fundamentally irreligious people (by this I mean not devout). these people find development in living their life, because their very ignorance across one plane gives them the confidence to insert themselves in the very situations that will physically and concretely force them to come to terms with these issues. in essence type isn't for everyone, but personal development can't really be circumvented, so if people aren't using type to develop themselves that's to be expected. in a sense these very people are engaged in fruitful self development by default, because just by being the way they are they invite the world to force itself on them and it doesn't matter what the theory says. I said personal development can't be circumvented, well that is true in the sense that people will just get their lessons elsewhere, but whether they listen or not is another matter (this is humility). still not listening to type theory is not a deathknell for development as if they can't listen at all, rather they may be tuned into other things. I think dave brilliantly stated things, but this is just a little add on to that, that it presupposes that to be into typology you need to respect it (via devotion), but disrespecting it builds in a certain attitude toward life that personality captures whether people realize it or not, which means ultimately this is not a huge problem except in the sense that it makes disseminating good information difficult because people often work at cross purposes when it comes to type. in other words, they make organizing the information and the community difficult. people's attitude toward typology is itself a great indicator of type, and so it would be absurd to try to hammer that down in some ways. nevertheless, the intentions are good because they want to head off difficulties and promote growth before the situation escalates for a person and any adverse consequences are worse. this is the essence of religion itself as far as I can tell, which is to pre-empt material consequences, but like I said, its just not for everyone. still, dave did an amazing job laying the message out there


whats also interesting is its hard to tell from the outside what people are simply making a big deal of because its their demons and what it is because its their heroes, especially on the internet, because you're denied the context that could make the nerd sounding tough laughable and so forth. I think about this in regard to various posters, where on one hand they talk as if jobs, material acquisition, logic, all this stuff is super important, but it would be really interesting to be a fly on their wall. in the end you almost have to say people are whatever type they are simply for this reason, but that doesn't change the fact that everyone is also liar to some degree




[1] in other words, typology plays no real significant role in their life. it is literally irrelevant. its just words after all. and there is kind a roundness to this way of thinking about it. my brother in law and I went to the same high school and he was a jock and I was a nerd, and he used to torment me a little, and of course my sister fell in love with him and got pregnant, and then they got married. now imagine a person living their entire life according to this sequence of priorities and you have an idea of it. but here's the thing, over the last 15 years I've watched him develop tremendously precisely because of this process. he was the kind of person who would go to church and the entire thing was way over his head, but at the same time you see him live it out with a kind of sincerity and directness that molds genuine character. in this way people like Jung and inherent to typology is a kind of optimism that transcends us just wanting to see things turn out the way we expect, its an optimism that handles the negative and positive sides. once you see this you start to see a profound beauty in all of the chaos and conflict in life. J. Peterson says its one of the only genuinely optimistic theses in psychology, because most forms of optimism are only optimism by way of denial, where this is it by way of acceptance. rather than being some form of "maybe that won't happen" it says "no it probably will happen, but here's why that's okay"

[The Reality Denialist]

It is like: Oh well. There are few kinks here and there that makes myself bit different. Ah this is why I might get this kind of response. No big deal when it comes to self. Expect that I'm weird perspective looking kind of person but it still varies great deal.

[golden]

First a video that I think makes some great points:



That's always been what I appreciated most about the enneagram - once you face your own personal issues, you have a way to deal with them, overcome them and become a better, happier, more fulfilled and less delusional person overall. Not everyone does this of course, and some just want to be the "best" type and tritype and instinct or whatever and feel special. But, it has the potential to be very helpful in personal growth. Can socionics also be that helpful?

I sometimes see people parading about how "intuitive" they are, or how "sensing" or telling everyone over and over how "logical" they are, using it as a source of pride, even though that's not what they are at all imo. Yes, people know themselves better than an internet stranger, at first, but over time when you see how they actually talk and react and think and interact a different picture emerges. The person who described themselves as kind and patient and very loving to everyone is actually constantly screaming at people and being extremely rude, dismissive, etc etc. or whatever. You start seeing that the person isn't quite how they described themselves. Obviously it's not appropriate to beat people over the heads with this, and since it is online and you don't know them personally, there's still a decent chance you're wrong of course. But, the delusional factor at play is what I'm interested in.

So, are you able to take an honest look at yourself, see your personal issues, and has knowing how this relates to type helped you overcome them? I've been looking at socionics for 12 years now. . . a ridiculous amount of time, and I've spent a great deal of that time treating it like a game, something fun to play with and interesting to look at. But, how have I actually used it to improve my life? Am I still harboring delusions about myself in some form, and how can I use that information? On the other side, besides issues, can you also be honest about your strengths, your real strengths and put them to use in better ways?

Buuuuuut I aaaaaaaam very very special and intuityyyyyyy and feeeeeeeeeely waaaaaaaaaaaaaah

[Bertrand]

I would say clarity is often achieved by what you cut out, not by what you necessarily know, hence you can measure real achievement by whatever the reversal of the dunning kruger effect is. by this I assume clarity is not necessarily evidence of knowing something complex and especially not something infinitely complex. the more sophisticated your understanding of an issue is, the more progress you've made. how do you know its sophisticated? it does more work, captures everything everyone else knows and more, and is understood by people who are demonstrably weaker in a different way. recourse to the crowd is only an achievement in terms of norms, to rise above that level will necessarily separate the individual out. thus the absence of a common understanding that does more than normal is evidence the understanding is better. you know all this of course, but as it pertains to the self is how you see yourself sophisticated or a stereotype, are you a bundle of strengths and weaknesses or something more. it just gets progressively meta which is the nature of psychological insight itself. once someone can see themselves beyond type I think one is starting to see one for the type one really is, which I think is something dave even says in his video, our conception of the box we need to fit in and what it represents needs to advance before we can even use the system properly, because otherwise the desire to do work in the "wrong" direction is overpowering. in other words, if we look to the people who have used it successfully to achieve something beyond the norm we can say they had the right idea, so who are these people. in this sense role models become important. from my point of view I have my own role models and so forth. it becomes a question of style if nothing else

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Great thread squark. There's a lot of directions I could take with what you said and add to it, the Ne-ness of it annoyed me a little but I will do my best.

You are one of my favorite posters, because I feel you communicate very clearly and I can understand you, and you aren't trying to sadistically or arrogantly one-up me like some people on here have been in the past. That's really just how my Fi-ness feels about you lol. If you do try to teach me something new, I always feel like it's coming from a good place and not 'I AM MORE LOGICAL AND SMARTER AND THUS INHERENTLY BETTER THAN YOU!' that other people have done in the past. But I have forgiven them, or attempted to- because I realize even that defense comes from trying to hide deep emotional scars, and like one of my friends said on here I do have a bad habit of cutely smiling at somebody when they are in serious pain - so it's not like I'd be this perfect holy person either if they were to open up about it instead of use that particular defense mechanism.

With that sentiment out of the way, I think that blatant too-much honesty with other people is always self-defeating. If anybody was to be completely honest about their horrible shadow qualities, I think realistically it would be nigh-impossible to support them no matter how forgiving you think you are. I do feel that we are all kind of rotten/horrible people to the core, nobody is 'good',and we are all just struggling every day not to succumb to the darkness and hate and kill everybody. It's a little universal to me, whatever the feeling/thinking orientation.

Then people get annoyed at us for manipulating, but they couldn't really handle the truth anyway. We live in a culture that pounces on people for being just a little uncouth or not pc or 'micro-aggressions.' The State wants to harshly punish people for what is essentially petty crap because they lack the balls and bravery to handle the big evils. And the 'big evil' always runs away with a smile on their face because of our leaders ineptitude. I don't think culturally we are a point where we could effectively deal with other people's Shadows, but until we do- these issues are just going to keep recycling themselves. Instead the powers-that-be seem to want to faux-reward people for self-righteously patting themselves on the back for how not racist they are in a middle class cocktail social situation, and the entire thing is rather juvenile and ridiculous. If that nonsense is being a 'good guy', I'll take being a misunderstood villain any day of the week.

True growth is yes, constantly growing- and always saying to yourself 'wow that was pretty shitty of me' instead of always pointing the finger. The internal darkness in us we can never get completely rid of, only delegate with and let it temporarily pass through us. That's how you take personal responsibility. It sounds simple enough but so many people still don't know how to do this, or they still hold onto their reasons of why they refuse. Obviously there is a limit to this, it can descend into 'liberal hand-wringing' and sometimes yes, you do just have to drop the boulder on the bad guy's head- but it is the right answer in a lot of civilized discourse.

But while we don't have to be completely honest-in-public like that about the deep wells of our jungian shadows (to ourselves secretly and we will grow), we do all naturally still keep each other in check I think. I think my point is, let's not condemn people for the process of getting better. It is growing 'pains' after all. <g> I like Teal Swan's focus on 'shadow work' even though she's a narcissistic bitch. That's also another one of my points, you could hate the person teaching you for being sinful and imperfect themselves or you could use it to your own benefit. Or both.

So corny as it is to say: Thanks for helping me grow, squark.

[squark]

Thanks @BandD =) There's a lot of good stuff in your post, and yeah I agree we can't always just let it all hang out. It's more important that we're honest with ourselves than to expose ourselves to the world so to speak.

[Bertrand]

lol squark got the SLE dream post

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

lol squark got the SLE dream post

??? lol how do you mean?

This is probably going to trigger a 2383923987 word essay but... I did ask. /goes to make coffee.

[Bertrand]

SLE wants to be admired in this way

[Bertrand]

how did it feel squark did you like it

did it justify all the hard work of self discovery. is this the payoff you've really been craving

[Guillaine]

Thanks @BandD =) There's a lot of good stuff in your post, and yeah I agree we can't always just let it all hang out. It's more important that we're honest with ourselves than to expose ourselves to the world so to speak.

That reminds me of this article.
https://www.vogue.com/article/joan-d...ect-essay-1961

[Bertrand]

hey I read that part about teal swan being a narcissistic bitch too!

[Adam Strange]

You're an ass Bertrand. You seem to have skipped all but his first paragraph. I'm not looking for praise, no, but there was a whole lot more to his post than that.

I wonder if you guys are conflictors.

I described my ex-LSI GF in what I thought were glowing terms to my ex-wife's IEE sister, and the IEE said, "I don't think we'd get along." And she knows nothing about typology.

[Bertrand]

it must suck being beset on all sides by self serving bullshitters

[Adam Strange]

^ It does.

[Rebelondeck]

Having insight into how people process information including myself has been a useful tool for me; however, I wouldn't look to it for self improvement. Socionics can't develop strengths or reduce weaknesses but it certainly can help explain them. It has helped me to quantify what I need in order for me to make better use of the processing capabilities that I actually do have - and to better employ those of others. The information elements shouldn't be perceived as bins that one can fill through practice or forced association; alchemy is a thing of the past.

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

Having insight into how people process information including myself has been a useful tool for me; however, I wouldn't look to it for self improvement. Socionics can't develop strengths or reduce weaknesses but it certainly can help explain them. It has helped me to quantify what I need in order for me to make better use of the processing capabilities that I actually do have - and to better employ those of others. The information elements shouldn't be perceived as bins that one can fill through practice or forced association; alchemy is a thing of the past.
a.k.a. I/O

Not in a nuclear reactor it isn't.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Betrand's hostility is confusing. In no way do I fantasize/project squark as the dual I never had - what the flying fuck. Your weird perception of Betas is so off lol.

I can see her being my activity partner though, I do kind of get pleasantly energized by her posts. You can mock this if it makes you feel better I guess? I could also mock your little gamma mancrush on lungs but I think that's beyond petty.

I felt she simply deserved me being nice to her though, you seem to get hatefully triggered by people simply being nice lol. Yeah, I will always be nice to people I think deserve it, it's who I am. This is different than trying to enforce niceness on everybody, but nobody can stop me being nice if I want. =p

[The Reality Denialist]

Something in this thread reminds me that some people need to get in better terms with their own super-ego block. Just to have some sort of growth.

Anyway it might have some shortcomings as well if done excessively.

[Rebelondeck]

Not in a nuclear reactor it isn't.

Then it couldn't be a medieval chemical philosophy. Are you implying that modern technologies (such as social media) have the potential not only change one's personality but also one's type........

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

Then it couldn't be a medieval chemical philosophy. Are you implying that modern technologies (such as social media) have the potential not only change one's personality but also one's type........

a.k.a. I/O

Not yet in a controlled way, but I'm sure that is in our future. Changing the genetic makeup of a person, and I believe personality is largely genetic, is possible now in very minor ways. How long before what is possible becomes real?

I get asked to do impossible things all the time (violating the second law, for example) and those things are not possible, but almost everything else is possible.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah with conflictors I think it's much more like 'I could call this person an ass but I would feel guilty for doing so, so instead I will try to be cordial to them even though that's clearly not going to work anyway.' lmao

[Sol]

The person who described themselves as kind and patient and very loving to everyone is actually constantly screaming at people and being extremely rude, dismissive, etc etc. or whatever.

There is a lot for subjectivism in our perception of other people, especially in the emotional region.
In Socionics it is described by IR. Also your own evaluations are more objective at your strong functions.
Other subjective factors also are strong. For example people tend to think good about them mostly, without objective approach. When you dislike something in someone, this rises the chance you'll dislike higher or interpret as negative other trait too, while those traits mb not linked - it's your brain generalizes and mixes the perceptions. You know lesser about others and interpret their behavior only based on this limited data. People may base selfperception based on the comparision with concrete someones and situatians in their lifes, with average how they perceive it, while you may decide by other means and examples. etc etc

> You start seeing that the person isn't quite how they described themselves.

Additional thing is that what people think and say mb not the same. I guess they'll prefer to describe some better.

> But, the delusional factor at play is what I'm interested in.

Besides Jung's types, psychology has some studies about distortions in selfperception and in how you perceive other people.

> So, are you able to take an honest look at yourself, see your personal issues, and has knowing how this relates to type helped you overcome them?

Now let's place apart subjectivism about good and bad in others.

Knowing of your type may help to find people for communication with suplementing types (at least with stronger functions and better skills there than you have). They are better experts about your weak regions. Such communications allow you to pay more attention on weak regions and to see better behavior examples at your opponents. This has good chance to improve you as a person.
Without other people it's hard to do. As it's lesser conscious regions and there is hard even to notice the problems on practice or correctly understand the degree of them. You need "experts" to teach you become better. Like in many other regions where it's more reasonable and effective to have teachers, but not develop totally on our own. It's possibly to develop on own, but harder - sportmen need trainers, though they may train by own understanding too - but it would be lesser effective, as the expert level of a trainer is higher, he knows better how to do this.
Duality (IR theory) is the great addition to what Jung wanted to do with his types. While he wanted types compensation to optimum psyche state without weak functions, which are lesser developed and skilled than social average norm or the needs.

> I've been looking at socionics for 12 years now. . . a ridiculous amount of time, and I've spent a great deal of that time treating it like a game, something fun to play with and interesting to look at. But, how have I actually used it to improve my life?

You could to make more IRL friendly communication with duals. It's where would be useful to start. The best would be a romance with having good IR and deep loving feelings there to help with the introjection/studing opponent's skills and rising weak regions.
It's where Socionics "as is" pushed you and it's the best way to use it to improve your life and you as a person. Also you could to pay more attention on what you do in weak regions and on critique you may get there - the theory offered this too.

> On the other side, besides issues, can you also be honest about your strengths, your real strengths and put them to use in better ways?

You may trust to your perception in your strong functions regions. You do there lesser mistakes or bad than people in average. To trust yourself in weak regions you may more limitedly, but you may - by geting of info, training the particular skills and controling to get good results - you may study in weak regions too and hence get good particular results. Like N type man may train in sport and get medals, though it's mostly S region.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think the assholeness or lack thereof is pretty objective in people, and the 'evil is a point of view' excuse is how jerks people manipulate others into supporting doing what they want- (I mean you hear it all the time, cops know how ass-y they're being in order to get a conviction, but arguably it's for a good cause.) but I also think it's true that with your duals or other compatible type you see how they are being an evil asshole but yet you also still care about them on top of it, or can better logically understand their reasonings. You saw and connected with their softer side too instead of just 'He's guilty- hang him!'

I realize my view is very Fe, cuz I feel the asshole/nice thing changes often in people and I don't usually have those harsh strict judgements about others that Fi valuers tend to have. I just can't do that and it's a weird way of thinking and being to me. I don't mean the person is an asshole or nice person in their entirety, but more in the moment. Over time specifically you can then better cauge how "evil/good" they are because of this- but it's much easier for ethical types I guess. Faggy NF moralizing is too easy/four-dimensional ish for me and I want to go hit something. =D

[Vespertine]

I have read somewhere that we interact with people in a similar fashion as we would a dual. It is logical in the way that this dual is also looking for a dual and that if you interact falsely, unlike yourself then there is no way in hell one could attract this dual... maybe slim chances.
I do think it makes sense, that we interact in hope of having dual reactions, yet the other types can react poorly to this, obv...
Is that truly a bad thing? I don’t think so, at least not as bad as being completely beside oneself. What is being beside onself? It up to you to figure that out.

In this thead, Bert has been himself, saying what he means with little regard for the impact of his words, nothing new. Those words sparked a reaction, and that reaction tells more about who reacted than who "provoked" the reaction.
A reaction happens when something goes right into something that hurts in ourselves, following the reaction to its root is a way to grow. A painful, annoying, intrusive one that is not to be brushed aside because of how uncomfortable it is.

Before someone dares to have the indecency of saying I'm taking someone's side, I'll say that yes, I do.
I'm taking my own fucking side.

[Chthonic Daydream]

How nice to see that in a thread titled "Using type for Growth" some people do the complete opposite and WAAH-WAAH all over it.

This is one great post, squark. I heard of that youtuber before. He has an interesting take on typology.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah maybe, though the reaction was odd to me because I wasn't thinking at all about SLEs when I made that post, not even in the deepest subconscious way possible. (And if anybody thinks otherwise they are frankly delusional. You are not in my head, weirdo.) We want everybody to be our dual... though that would get boring. You realize just how dual they are with your other less-superior interactions. It's like the emotional moment needs to be properly earned. I'd rather passionately kiss a SLE after we win a sadistically hard boss fight together then just it being too easy. If it's too easy it's not worth it... just pretending/wishing in my head that every person I talk to is a SLE, how lame and pathetic!

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

A reaction happens when something goes right into something that hurts in ourselves, following the reaction to its root is a way to grow. A painful, annoying, intrusive one that is not to be brushed aside because of how uncomfortable it is.

I don't buy into this either. 'omg the person was right because he hit a nerve!' But he didn't hit a nerve, I just found it confusing/odd. I went 'WTF' not 'I'm sooo hurt, because he was Hannibal and he was right.'

I'm also not objectively more 'reactive' than Bertrand because I am more openly feeler-y or whatever. That's an illusion. I reacted to squark, he reacted to me. I reacted back. You yourself reacted. It's a chain reaction!

[Bertrand]

ha it wasnt meant to be hostile it was just intended to point out socionics at work, as I see it anyway. my questions to squark were meant to be lighthearted beause I already knew she didnt do it with that intent in mind. shes probably so used to being treated so roughly, she didn't realize someone might actually be able to joke about such things. its okay, everyone reading-in hostility and trying to smooth things over is appreciated, but its misplaced because there's nothing to smooth over to begin with. note this isn't mean to characterize NorthernRose's posts which are their own separate thing and I think spot on. we live in such a world of divide and conquer its almost impossible to simply say what you mean without someone coming in to drive a wedge in some way shape or other, and now even when you don't intend to do so it is interpreted as such by someone. this applies to all sides. in short there's nothing to any of this, people just rush to contribute, meaning well, but of course there's too many cooks in the kitchen. so now there's all sorts of outward confusion in relations, but the underlying truth never really changes. people are the same, like the bible says "barbs from a friend.."

[golden]

@Bertrand, are you supposed to be ILI? Because everyone keeps referring to you having all these impacts on them or being hostile and to me it just seems like harmless puffs of air.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah I understand that. On videos he comes across as a harmless boy kitten, but on text he's a lot more bite-y some of the time. Hostile probably wasn't the best word, I don't always search for the most-perfect logical word in a situation. Squark's 'ass-y' was better. As well, kittens have claws haha. More than anything his train of thought is often confusing/delusional to me and I have to weed through the debris to get to something I like. It is what it is.

It doesn't personally impact me that much either. Part of it is stirring up some drama cuz I'm bored on a Friday night.

[Guillaine]

I don't think we are conflictors, partially because I can call him an ass. I do think that I conflict with Joan Didion though lol. While I appreciated Guillaine's post and thought it added to the conversation, it was a huge struggle to get through Didion's essay. Definitely not a writing style I can enjoy, feels like walking through sludge.

Oh, thanks for reading it then! I've just read one of her books I think she is EII-Ne 5w4.

[Bertrand]

I did know that you didn't think I was seeking praise and whatnot, but you set the question up in such a way as to disparage BandD, turning his post into something it wasn't. That's why I called you an ass. I think more hostility is being read than actually exists though. Maybe things have gotten to the point where you can't say things like that to people without anger and hostility being assumed. Idk . . . are you only allowed to call people asses if you're boiling angry, bc I even call my friends asses sometimes.

it seems we understand eachother quite well then and all this conflict is just chatter from the outside then. it was mean of me to disparage bnd in that way, but like I said, its not like he doesn't do his own fair share of disparaging in the very same post. this isn't to try to run things back through the merry go round of blame, its to demonstrate how people seem to think thats a proper domain to work in when it suits them, but don't see how it renders a lot of their praise transparent and of less value because it lacks something in going about things the way it does. you see other people who see nothing wrong with this participate in a continuation of this very game, as if the solution is more of it. but my whole thing is not to get bogged down in what amounts to that sort of, what I see as social, pettiness, and maneuvering even when it drapes itself in high praise and sincerity. people like that just seem like judgement smugglers, the whole thing feels illicit to me. this is why SLE loves it because they love that form of "winning" i.e.: getting away with it. the result. the extracted compromise of character, to see ethics quail before them, in their own way. the concession to the mob boss that puts you past the point of no return. loyalty to the person over the truth, which is a strange form of loyalty, because whats it worth

I also read the didion article, and first rolled my eyes cause Joan Didion (is a meme), but gave it a run through and agree it was kind of flowery but not in the way I like, although I think embedded in it were legit good points. I would say I just didn't love her style, but of course, people hate my meandering too, so to each their own

[Vespertine]

Communication is difficult, we never truly understand what someone means, yet it has a meaning to us nonetheless, which can be aggravating when both side differ drasticaly in interpretation.
We all have filters, prejudices, fear, or whatever, coming into play. Where do these come from is an other story.
Context is difficult to grasp, even worst online... even worst when one fails to understand the relationship at work, generaly talking, like on friendly terms, not IR. God knows how stupid I am about relationship...
Existing is difficult, growing up is a messy process.

[Bertrand]

yup we're all just bouncing off eachother, trying to prevent this just engenders more of it, the best thing is to press through it all with a bit of faith and style, as far as I can tell anyway. greatness is measured in imitators of one's style. greatness doesn't have to be a goal, but neither is it a poor one. look at Jesus, did he aspire to be great or not? and he certainly has his imitators, although Nietzsche would say there was only one Christian and he died on the cross. the point here is be your own person, but even Nietzsche imitated Jesus when he styled himself the crucified one. inflation is a danger and greatness is just a word, and the two come together in a particularly nasty form of weakness, and so there's something to be said for anyone who wants nothing to do with either, but the point is you gotta be oriented in some kind of direction, and you don't have to apologize for that, but neither does anyone else, so we call spades spades and do our best to keep moving

[Vespertine]

yup we're all just bouncing off eachother, trying to prevent this just engenders more of it, the best thing is to press through it all with a bit of faith and style, as far as I can tell anyway. greatness is measured in imitators of one's style. greatness doesn't have to be a goal, but neither is it a poor one. look at Jesus, did he aspire to be great or not? and he certainly has his imitators, although Nietzsche would say there was only one Christian and he died on the cross. the point here is be your own person, but even Nietzsche imitated Jesus when he styled himself the crucified one. inflation is a danger and greatness is just a word, and the two come together in a particularly nasty form of weakness, and so there's something to be said for anyone who wants nothing to do with either, but the point is you gotta be oriented in some kind of direction, and you don't have to apologize for that, but neither does anyone else, so we call spades spades and do our best to keep moving

Sometimes I wonder what you are... though I don't want an answer.
A complex being, like all the others.
If a person seems simple, it is that we are blind to their complexity.
Why are we blind to it is the question...

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

but like I said, its not like he doesn't do his own fair share of disparaging in the very same post.

How did I disparage anybody? I think often times you have this negative reaction to me because I remind you of what you don't like about yourself, or haven't fully accepted in yourself. And you always make these weird conclusions that I just don't get, and feel are totally off base.

It wasn't 'high praise' either , it was just a nice and subtle/sweet gesture to squark. A genuine Fi feeling that I had that you had to pervert like the BETA Fe valuer that you are! You didn't need to make a big deal out of it and mock it (that was pretty ass-y as you are already smart enough to know) Do you genuinely dislike her and hate if other people give her a compliment or something, or are you are a campy disney villain that groans at genuine affection? Either way it just kind of makes you come across as some hateful bully when I know you are more than that.

Social maneuvering claim is also really incredibly silly lol. More of your weird perceptions of 'Fe' like that are totally baseless. I'm not some manipulative social maneuvering type person... I really don't have that power or influence. At the most I guess you could say I'm suggestive. Your claims are so ridiculous it really just feels like you are gaslighting a lot of the time.

[woofwoofl]

Type-as-holy-writ people-typing is low priority for me. I'm most into de facto spots people occupy re: type; when two/more people come together, cover many bases, and try not to interfere. Also huge, related, is typing multi-person units -- always generous with room.