Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: the "Interest vs Resource" dichotomy

  1. #1
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default the "Interest vs. Resource" dichotomy

    Otherwise known as Compliant vs. Obstinate:

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    COMPLIANCE – OBSTINACY
    USTUPCHIVOST - UPRJAMSTVO

    Compliant (Extroverts with logic and introverts with ethics):
    Ustupchivye (ekstraverty - logiki i introverty - etiki):

    1. For the compliant inside of their "personal space" (i.e. something that cannot be compromised), which is outlined with a "personal boundary", are personal resources (Time, funds) and interests are manipulated (Are "played" with). An interest is taken only if it can be supported by adequate/corresponding personal resources. Resources are absolute and interests are mailable.
    2. Compliants, while interacting with other people, freely express their interests
    (They freely express their intimate opinions, voice their disagreements, consider counterarguments, share their interests with other people). They divide interests as "my interests" and "those of other people". They readily share their interests and opinions in conversation, and do not see a reason for other people's interests and opinions to correlate with theirs.
    3. The compliant protects their personal resources to a point of conflict, but does not do the same thing with their interests. If a person starts asking/requesting their resources, as they perceive it, intruding into their "personal space", they react by a very sharp reaction which can seem a bit over the edge, aggressive (This reaction is connected with the property of "inviolability" of their resources) They become defensive when others ask them to compromise or expect them to be generous with their resources.

    Obstinate (Extrovert with ethics and introverts with logic):
    Uprjamye (ekstraverty - etiki i introverty - logiki):

    1. For the obstinate into their "personal ("inviolable") space", which is outlined with a "personal boundary", are placed interests and for them resources are manipulated. With the usage of their resources they make opportunities for interests. Interests are absolute and resources are mailable.
    2. The obstinate in interaction with other people freely operates with their resources (They can "share" and "change" them, refurnish them and use/spend them). They divide resources on their resources and other people's resources. They are generous with their resources because they see their resources as mailable, and they see other people's resources as mailable. An example would be a person who freely borrows money, buys dinner, and bums cigarettes to others... and often doesn't mind when others are generous with them.
    3. The obstinate guards itself from intrusions into their personal sphere of interests, and do not protect their resources. If a person tries to impose interests on them and thus intrude into their personal space their reaction will be sufficiently deterring/sharp (Such a reaction occurs if other peoples interests do not become the obstinate's interests) They become defensive when others ask them to compromise their interests. I don't have an example of this right now... perhaps someone else can provide one.

    Note

    The keys for this group are the concepts of "personal space", "resources" (What we have available at our disposal) and "personal interests" (Unlike regular interests these are completely personal, actions that we find interesting and feel personal responsibility and attachment to). "Personal space" is something that an individual feels is an integral part of them, it cannot be renounced and will be defended/guarded from claims upon it and intrusions into it by others. For the compliant this space is occupied by their resources while for the obstinate by their interests. As a result of that complaints manipulate interests (Freely change them, adjust them in accordance with their resources) and obstinates resources (They adjust them to their interests).

    Examples

    Compliant:
    "What you do, your affairs/actions, can either be determined by yourself or by other people who will "burden/chain" you with their wishes and requests" "Interests/hobbies in which I cannot participate anymore (Cannot do for one reason or another) eventually become uninteresting and I grow tired of them. I let go of old interests easily" "I limit my affairs, how many things I'm involved with, how many things I am suppose to do. For instance I may find something very interesting to do/get involved with, but I won't pursue the thing" "if I know that I can't do something, I won't and will forget all about it" "If I have an interest it is, naturally, reflected by capabilities. If something is impossible I won't go wasting my time and effort on it. I don't understand people who list all kinds of numerous interests... personally I clearly know what my capabilities are"

    Obstinate:
    "I never let go of my passions(Interests). But I also won't, because of them, neglect sleep, eating..." "I certainly won't abandon it.... I'm inclined to carry the situation to the end" "I can't let go of my passions for the fear of losing myself, my identity/personality" "My passions (Interests) go the limits of my physical capabilities. When my physical capabilities show me their limits- I will let go of my passions (Interests) but I will do this only as a very last resort... but even then I will not abandon them but I will only "postpone" them and await the moment when I can get back to them. I won't drop/abandon my passions (interests) just because my resources are inadequate..."
    Compliant: ExTx, IxFx
    Obstinant: ExFx, IxTx
    This dichotomy seriously needs to be renamed. I think that calling Compliant "Resource" and Obstinate "Interest" or something of the like would be good. Any other ideas?
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  2. #2
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this dichotomy must have originally been named by an Obstinate person. We're all compliant in some things and obstinate in others. This dichotomy is about what we're obstinate and what we're compliant with.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    renaming the dichotomy would accomplish nothing other than inspiring further confusion.

  4. #4
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    renaming the dichotomy would accomplish nothing other than inspiring further confusion.
    This is one of the, if the, most poorly named dichotomies. I don't know that there's any way to "officially" rename it. I just want people to understand it better and not get caught up on its name.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  5. #5
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  6. #6
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    why's that?
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  7. #7
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  8. #8
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  9. #9
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  10. #10
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yes
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  11. #11
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,626
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From that description, I am Compliant. I really hate it when people mess with my stuff, especially when I was younger. Perhaps I just seem Compliant because my true interests, my passions, are so few (though they are lasting). Or maybe I'm ENTp....

  12. #12
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To be honest, at this point ENTp seems at least as likely for you as INTj, and not because of this thread.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  13. #13
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Has this dichotomy something to do with inert/contact functions (functions 2358 / 1467) ?

    Interest-Protecting has or as conscious inert functions, and or as conscious contact functions

    Resource-Protecting has or as conscious inert functions, and or as conscious contact functions

  14. #14
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    to which theory are you referring?
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  15. #15
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    to which theory are you referring?
    Basically , on that theory.

    There are derivative dichotomies for types (as Reinin said), elements (as Gulenko said), and functions. We know well the dichotomies accepting/producing, conscious/subconscious, strong/weak, valuable/non-valuable.

    There are three derivative dichotomies that seems more obscure :

    1467/2358 = inert/contact
    1368/2457 = I don't know
    1458/2367 = I don't know

Posting Permissions

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