Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Forming relationships: Socionics point of view

  1. #1
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Forming relationships: Socionics point of view

    I got inspiration for this from the "10 people" thread. I mentioned there that it demotivates me to try to get into a deeper relationships with people if the theoretical potential of the relationship is limited. I wonder how other people see this. Is this a totally flawed approach and why?

    Here is a case study:
    Let's say that I meet an interesting person here in the forum. He/she lives very far away and because of that and our life situations it is unlikely that we will ever meet and even more unlikely that we would meet in a consistent basis or otherwise have a big effect on each other's life IRL.

    Now in this kind of situation, despite the fact that I feel great interest in this person in theory and initially feel a need to get to know them better, I tend to eventually become demotivated about getting to know them beyond a certain point. It is like "What is the point as we will likely never become real friends anyways and so it feels like any effort is likely wasted and end up making us both dissatisfied when the limitations start having concrete effect". This is very "anti-myspace" attitude as I can't understand what is the point of making a myspace page and getting a big network of unknown or barely known people to link to your page. Perhaps I can see some practical purposes like you can get music and hear about new places and whatever from those people but from social point of view it seems something I wouldn't bother to do. Then again many people do it so it has to bear relevance to them. I might be just missing the point.

    And some pointers to discuss:

    1) How do you approach this subject and what makes it such fun to have a huge network of people you barely know and never will? Do you get some satisfaction from the sheer amount of people you interact with? Is there a hidden social aspect which I fail to see?

    2) Do you see my approach containing some flaw and that I'm missing something relevant when I'm taking such a "negativistic" and "limiting" approach to socializing? That I want to make every relations I form to be a very serious friendship or otherwise I don't bother to develop it further than superficial level? Sometimes I think I'm perhaps missing something because I approach this from a too analytical standpoint instead of just "throwing myself" into socializing.

    3) What is the socionics point of view Generally I think indicators for social "spread out" behavior could be a) being an ethical type, b) being a Fe quadra type, c) being an extroverted type, d) being a sensory type. I'm not sure if it is quite this simple though and perhaps there is something else to it which I fail to notice. Personal and cultural difference might also affect.

  2. #2
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Forming relationships: Socionics point of view

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    I got inspiration for this from the "10 people" thread. I mentioned there that it demotivates me to try to get into a deeper relationships with people if the theoretical potential of the relationship is limited. I wonder how other people see this. Is this a totally flawed approach and why?

    Here is a case study:
    Let's say that I meet an interesting person here in the forum. He/she lives very far away and because of that and our life situations it is unlikely that we will ever meet and even more unlikely that we would meet in a consistent basis or otherwise have a big effect on each other's life IRL.

    Now in this kind of situation, despite the fact that I feel great interest in this person in theory and initially feel a need to get to know them better, I tend to eventually become demotivated about getting to know them beyond a certain point. It is like "What is the point as we will likely never become real friends anyways and so it feels like any effort is likely wasted and end up making us both dissatisfied when the limitations start having concrete effect". This is very "anti-myspace" attitude as I can't understand what is the point of making a myspace page and getting a big network of unknown or barely known people to link to your page. Perhaps I can see some practical purposes like you can get music and hear about new places and whatever from those people but from social point of view it seems something I wouldn't bother to do. Then again many people do it so it has to bear relevance to them. I might be just missing the point.
    I gather you don't use IMs? I know some people online that I would more readily define friends if opposed to most of my superficial acquaintances IRL. Generally, I consider the physical part to be (obviously) necessary in a romantic relationship; however, this is not so in regard to friends.


    1) How do you approach this subject and what makes it such fun to have a huge network of people you barely know and never will? Do you get some satisfaction from the sheer amount of people you interact with? Is there a hidden social aspect which I fail to see?
    That's somewhat different. I see it as a way to have a larger social network and I think that people do it mainly for business purposes - in the future, you can never know whether a contact will be useful, or not. However I don't have the patience nor the willingness to put up the front to cheerfully welcome people I have nothing in common with in my network of friends "just because".

    2) Do you see my approach containing some flaw and that I'm missing something relevant when I'm taking such a "negativistic" and "limiting" approach to socializing? That I want to make every relations I form to be a very serious friendship or otherwise I don't bother to develop it further than superficial level? Sometimes I think I'm perhaps missing something because I approach this from a too analytical standpoint instead of just "throwing myself" into socializing.
    I find it to be a completely personal choice. If yours is an aprioristic stance, then you might be missing something. However, if you have tried and felt you were not capable of forming bonds that way, then it's not limiting - it's just the way it is.

    3) What is the socionics point of view Generally I think indicators for social "spread out" behavior could be a) being an ethical type, b) being a Fe quadra type, c) being an extroverted type, d) being a sensory type. I'm not sure if it is quite this simple though and perhaps there is something else to it which I fail to notice. Personal and cultural difference might also affect.
    My observations say: no relation to psychological type. Upon further inspection, I see a slight prevalence of SF-s among the people that adopt this behaviour. Which is consistent with the way the grouping is described.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  3. #3
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Forming relationships: Socionics point of view

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    I gather you don't use IMs? I know some people online that I would more readily define friends if opposed to most of my superficial acquaintances IRL. Generally, I consider the physical part to be (obviously) necessary in a romantic relationship; however, this is not so in regard to friends.
    You are right I don't. One problem with IMs is that my style of interaction oscillates between quite intense to almost non-existent. It seems with IMs you are supposed to be sort of always online and do only short and non-intensive commentary every now and then. Or that how it seems to an outsider (my wife uses IM). Also most of my RL friends don't use IM so I would have to seek internet friends for that. I guess they/we are not part of the IM-generation lol. But really I like chats like irc way more because you log in, then you chat intensively and then you log out. With IMs there is this glooming constant online thing that bothers me as well as how much am I allowed to talk and how often etc. Sometimes people seem disturbed when I try to talk to them in IM and sometimes they are very willing to talk. I can't really predict their "availability" and how should I interact with them at any given time. All in all it is a hard media for me in daily use. Perhaps I have to learn that a bit more.

    But another thing, I did have some "letter friend" and also some "email friend" when younger (when there was no IM). It always happens that after a while the relations gets stagnant and starts to lack potential for further development and then you end up like "umm...why did I start this at the first place?". And it all kind of dries up. Perhaps that is not a problem to most people or my attitude of trying to make "best friends" with everybody is a bad one. I should be less black and white in relationship issues instead of doing the "best friends" vs "neutral" vs "enemy" black and white attitude where most people are "neutral".

    That's somewhat different. I see it as a way to have a larger social network and I think that people do it mainly for business purposes - in the future, you can never know whether a contact will be useful, or not. However I don't have the patience nor the willingness to put up the front to cheerfully welcome people I have nothing in common with in my network of friends "just because".
    That _might_ be easier to me as there is no intention to reach any "potential" but just gather contacts. However I would never use those contacts I think. I'm somehow afraid to use my contacts in business matters especially if the people are somewhat strangers. Doing the myspace thing might teach me new tricks though.

    I find it to be a completely personal choice. If yours is an aprioristic stance, then you might be missing something. However, if you have tried and felt you were not capable of forming bonds that way, then it's not limiting - it's just the way it is.
    Well I have been able to sort of form bonds but then there is always the "dead end" in all those relations. They reach a point where further development is not possible and that frustrates me. But again the problem might be that I require too much of those relations and thus fail to see that they are good for me even if they only reach a rather limited state of interaction.

  4. #4
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Forming relationships: Socionics point of view

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    I gather you don't use IMs? I know some people online that I would more readily define friends if opposed to most of my superficial acquaintances IRL. Generally, I consider the physical part to be (obviously) necessary in a romantic relationship; however, this is not so in regard to friends.
    You are right I don't. One problem with IMs is that my style of interaction oscillates between quite intense to almost non-existent. It seems with IMs you are supposed to be sort of always online and do only short and non-intensive commentary every now and then. Or that how it seems to an outsider (my wife uses IM). Also most of my RL friends don't use IM so I would have to seek internet friends for that. I guess they/we are not part of the IM-generation lol. But really I like chats like irc way more because you log in, then you chat intensively and then you log out. With IMs there is this glooming constant online thing that bothers me as well as how much am I allowed to talk and how often etc. Sometimes people seem disturbed when I try to talk to them in IM and sometimes they are very willing to talk. I can't really predict their "availability" and how should I interact with them at any given time. All in all it is a hard media for me in daily use. Perhaps I have to learn that a bit more.
    That's normal because some people are busy sometimes. Generally if I see that the other party is moody at my attempts at exchanging info on IMs I let him/her contact me if he/she wishes next time.
    Make no mistake though: people that you can chat with on IMs in a very easy way without misunderstandings are generally also the people you are going to relate the easiest IRL, however it's not biunivoc, people you easily relate with IRL do not necessarily interact well on IMs. I think IMs require much more mental reactivity than IRL communication as a rule.
    I understand your concern about not knowing how much attention you should give to people. Thing is, with people you are comfortable with, you aren't going to be preoccupied about that because they usually send the right signals/are able to request you not to chat because they are busy in way that isn't harsh.

    This might seem to be strange but there are actually many people that aren't comfortable with one-on-one interaction with somebody when they aren't in a bigger group.

    But another thing, I did have some "letter friend" and also some "email friend" when younger (when there was no IM). It always happens that after a while the relations gets stagnant and starts to lack potential for further development and then you end up like "umm...why did I start this at the first place?". And it all kind of dries up. Perhaps that is not a problem to most people or my attitude of trying to make "best friends" with everybody is a bad one. I should be less black and white in relationship issues instead of doing the "best friends" vs "neutral" vs "enemy" black and white attitude where most people are "neutral".
    I personally could never ever have a letter friend. I think small talk is absolutely necessary in order to get to know somebody, so it would be very awkward to just write out of the blue.

    Well I have been able to sort of form bonds but then there is always the "dead end" in all those relations. They reach a point where further development is not possible and that frustrates me. But again the problem might be that I require too much of those relations and thus fail to see that they are good for me even if they only reach a rather limited state of interaction.
    I have 2 people on IM with whom I haven't reached dead-ends, however we sometimes stay months without speaking to each other; when we pick the relationship up, it's the same as it was before.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  5. #5
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Meeting people IRL is quite an intensive experience for me - I always want things to stay the same and not get worse , so I end up trying to avoid people if I have to put a lot of effort in to a good dialogue - it's easier to find someone by accident who just happens to be agreeable to my way of thinking (Alpha values etc.) and isn't a murderer.

    Online, it's easier to pick and mix who you choose to - there's less intensity, and you can find someone with your interests. But people online who have my interests always seem quite pretentious in that they define themselves by certain interests, as though that's them - I feel there's nothing left to learn about them, too - or that things will only get worse and they'll turn out to be a murderer (albeit online), or they might even be Meatloaf's No. 1 fan or something.

    The best compromise for me is to talk to people I've known in the past via MSN, and to use online people as some sort of resource (sorry guys ), but its not completely satisfactory.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  6. #6
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Forming relationships: Socionics point of view

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    I personally could never ever have a letter friend. I think small talk is absolutely necessary in order to get to know somebody, so it would be very awkward to just write out of the blue.
    That's funny. To me the small talk is awkward. I would really want to skip small talk but I sense that some people need it. I'm not sure if I can provide it well though.

  7. #7
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Forming relationships: Socionics point of view

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    I personally could never ever have a letter friend. I think small talk is absolutely necessary in order to get to know somebody, so it would be very awkward to just write out of the blue.
    That's funny. To me the small talk is awkward. I would really want to skip small talk but I sense that some people need it. I'm not sure if I can provide it well though.
    I loathe small talk that is about "what you have done last evening" but i like the one that is all about exchange of one-liners
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  8. #8
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Forming relationships: Socionics point of view

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    I personally could never ever have a letter friend. I think small talk is absolutely necessary in order to get to know somebody, so it would be very awkward to just write out of the blue.
    That's funny. To me the small talk is awkward. I would really want to skip small talk but I sense that some people need it. I'm not sure if I can provide it well though.
    I loathe small talk that is about "what you have done last evening" but i like the one that is all about exchange of one-liners
    I can do the kind of small talk which is very humorous. And in case of opposite sex a bit flirtative. I'm very bad at "polite" small talk like asking how people are and if their career is progressing nicely and how is their kid named blaablaa doing at school and if their dog won the competition it participated and so on. Small talk would have to be somehow wrapped around humor and humorous remarks and all kinds of weird stuff, lol.

  9. #9
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Forming relationships: Socionics point of view

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    I personally could never ever have a letter friend. I think small talk is absolutely necessary in order to get to know somebody, so it would be very awkward to just write out of the blue.
    That's funny. To me the small talk is awkward. I would really want to skip small talk but I sense that some people need it. I'm not sure if I can provide it well though.
    I loathe small talk that is about "what you have done last evening" but i like the one that is all about exchange of one-liners

    I can do the kind of small talk which is very humorous. And in case of opposite sex a bit flirtative.
    A bit?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  10. #10
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Forming relationships: Socionics point of view

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    I can do the kind of small talk which is very humorous. And in case of opposite sex a bit flirtative.
    A bit?
    Well...I would perhaps like to be more than a bit flirtative but sometimes my "flirt" turns out to be not too smooth. It is kind of nerdy flirting which when applied correctly and in small amounts and good timing works but when applied too openly and in too big amounts gets a bit dorky and a turnoff, lol. I think my "flirt" as well as my smalltalk has a certain kind of naive component to it which you either like or consider it weirdish.

  11. #11
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Forming relationships: Socionics point of view

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    And some pointers to discuss:

    1) How do you approach this subject and what makes it such fun to have a huge network of people you barely know and never will? Do you get some satisfaction from the sheer amount of people you interact with? Is there a hidden social aspect which I fail to see?
    As usual in your case (no offense intended, truly) the premises on which you base your questions are more interesting than the questions themselves.

    Ever stopped to consider that it may have nothing to do with those premises? For instance, why do you presume that "you barely know" those people? I have been in touch with someone in Canada for over 10 years. Like FDG said, sometimes months go by without contact. But we know each other better than many people I "know" IRL.

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    2) Do you see my approach containing some flaw and that I'm missing something relevant when I'm taking such a "negativistic" and "limiting" approach to socializing? That I want to make every relations I form to be a very serious friendship or otherwise I don't bother to develop it further than superficial level? Sometimes I think I'm perhaps missing something because I approach this from a too analytical standpoint instead of just "throwing myself" into socializing.
    The flaw is taking for granted that it has to be about "socializing" and that it has to remain on "superficial" level.


    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    3) What is the socionics point of view Generally I think indicators for social "spread out" behavior could be a) being an ethical type, b) being a Fe quadra type, c) being an extroverted type, d) being a sensory type. I'm not sure if it is quite this simple though and perhaps there is something else to it which I fail to notice. Personal and cultural difference might also affect.
    The problem, again, is your assumption that it has to be about "social spread-out" behavior.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    The best compromise for me is to talk to people I've known in the past via MSN, and to use online people as some sort of resource (sorry guys ), but its not completely satisfactory.
    I try not to have a policy about these sorts of things (people/relations), despite urges to formulate one. People have always been surprised that I consider people online real people. Some people have been very intrigued with me but not considered me "real" which is really strange to the person this is being told to. I chalk it up to Fi role and Fe dual seeking.

    But I still relate to what you said.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Forming relationships: Socionics point of view

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I have been in touch with someone in Canada for over 10 years.
    wow. That touches my heart.

Posting Permissions

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