Psychological structure modeling of thoughts

[UDP]

I don't know why that title came up, but, it is what it is. This will be a thread where I talk about various socionics ramblings that I don't know where else to go. It is a selfish endeavor. You can post or pass as you like.



What troubles me most about socionics, not just the learning it but the appyling it, is that you begin to see how peoples thoughts are molded by their actual psychological structure, and, I at times doubt the actual sincerity of what someone says.

What is most peculiar is that if you attempt to address this in someone else, sometimes they will not take it well because they are so identified with the nature of their thought formulation that it seems inseparable from their own thoughts, and so it is almost a personal insult or questioning of them.

More often, however, it's not an insult that is felt nor something I bring up, but rather, a lingering doubt or suspicion in my mind that someone understand the nature of their own thoughts. At times people can seem much more like inanimate objects than I'd like; very complex manifestations of very simple inclinations.

And seeing as how I have not see or come across anyone who is particularly 'above' this or 'separate' from what I'm observing, I can only assume, somewhat regretably, that I am the same way, and that I, too, may come across that way to others.

[Azeroffs]

why exactly do you doubt their sincerity? just curious

[717495]

This thread needs a suitable pic (if you don't mind).

[Jarno]

I don't know why that title came up, but, it is what it is. This will be a thread where I talk about various socionics ramblings that I don't know where else to go. It is a selfish endeavor. You can post or pass as you like.



What troubles me most about socionics, not just the learning it but the appyling it, is that you begin to see how peoples thoughts are molded by their actual psychological structure, and, I at times doubt the actual sincerity of what someone says.

What is most peculiar is that if you attempt to address this in someone else, sometimes they will not take it well because they are so identified with the nature of their thought formulation that it seems inseparable from their own thoughts, and so it is almost a personal insult or questioning of them.

More often, however, it's not an insult that is felt nor something I bring up, but rather, a lingering doubt or suspicion in my mind that someone understand the nature of their own thoughts. At times people can seem much more like inanimate objects than I'd like; very complex manifestations of very simple inclinations.

And seeing as how I have not see or come across anyone who is particularly 'above' this or 'separate' from what I'm observing, I can only assume, somewhat regretably, that I am the same way, and that I, too, may come across that way to others.

interesting stuff. Can you clarify the part of insincerity?

[Suz]

why exactly do you doubt their sincerity? just curious

Yes I'm wondering about this as well...

Do you mean-- if you identify someone as Fe-valuing, for example, you start suspecting that they are insincere in their "niceness"?

(I have experienced this, but i have been able to pick up on such things even before I learned socionics).


Or do you mean, people who study socionics try to mold themselves to their socionics type even if their mistyped?

[UDP]

I feel like there is a difference between someone choosing to use their functional alignment and someone not choosing to use it.

Perhaps worded better, it's sort of an awareness of how their own psychological structure will naturally influence what it is they see or think or how they conceive things. Sometimes I feel like I'm "talking" to someone's IEs, their psychological structure, and in order for me to really explain something to them, I have to warp what I say towards something more palatable to their information metabolism situation.

So that's where the concerns about sincerity come in. Am I being sincere myself, in trying to augment things, because I know whatever it is I know about socionics and how the mind works? How much does said person understand the difference I spoke of before?

Am I deluded in thinking I can actually feel or sense the difference between when I'm relying solely on my mental structure, versus when I'm actually using critical thinking and acknowledging that I will have an inherent bias in my processing of information?

I don't know.


I've said this before, in less complex terms, when I've said I felt like I was talking to someone's IEs, their 'functions', rather than to them.

And, I think an underlying aspect of what I'm talking about is that lately I've been trying to consider and understand more about how aware people are, and how that affects their perspectives on lives. I've done a lot of talking to various people, at different ages and stations and situations in life, and their different energies and attitudes have fascinated me. I see much broader implications outside of socionics, but, what I brought up in the OP was something specifically related to socionics, or at least more so. And, I wanted a thread where I could talk about various things of socionics, that may be far fetched or weird, or whatever.

[pianosinger]

I've said this before, in less complex terms, when I've said I felt like I was talking to someone's IEs, their 'functions', rather than to them.

Well, even if you did not know socionics, you would probably still do this. I know I have different ways of talking and dealing with different kinds of people. It's a learned thing, adjusting our speech and behavior to what we think will be most interesting or acceptable to certain other people; and we must learn to do this to an extent in order to get along with people.

I talk in a cutesie voice to my baby, but would I be taken seriously if I did so with an adult? Certainly not.

If I have to break some bad news to someone who I know is going be deeply emotional about it, I will probably try to break the news more gently than I would with someone who obviously appreciates and isn't bothered by bluntness.

If I know someone who is quick to pick up on what I mean, I will probably not have to spend as much time explaining myself as I would with someone who may be a little slower in grasping what I'm trying to say.

Manipulation, of couse, is another thing. But, learning how to communicate effectively with different people is not manipulation, it's just efficiency.

[UDP]

No type has a truly superior disposition toward relationship problems. Ethical types, say, delta NFs, can be quite unwilling of or avoidant of negative aspects of relationships - for various reasons (personal fear of self assertion, training, complacency, etc). delta STs are obviously plenty terrible at relationships, clueless about communication and varying perspectives, selfish, ignorant, etc.

Point being, I don't honestly think that any type, or, 'ethical types' are better at relationships than other types. It reminds me a lot of the myth that gay men are the best 'guys' to talk to about relationships, or that they are somehow blessed to know 'both worlds'.

If you want to have a real relationship and be successful in a real sense, rather than just some sort of petty "I'm to stupid to understand reality, so I need someone to not suck at what I suck at" fashion, then you have to understand all the different aspects of what is going on. In reality you get no points for being able to only comprehend or operate in terms of what your ego block is.

I agree (with expat? and others?) that you are most often rewarded or liked for staying in your zone of strength (that is , focusing on and making contributions to via your ego block, your strong functions, even), but that is more for contributions and things you can actively 'provide'. (that's why I think it is somewhat advantageous to be in a relationship with someone in your quadra, esp complementing clubs...). HOWEVER, you get no bonus points for ignorance. No amount of cutness is going to make up for your own personal inability to comprehend the aspects of reality that are typically associated with your weak function.

If you are with someone who just laughs or finds that amusing - your patheticness - then chances are you're relationship won't involve much growth, or the other person is just as weak as you are and not interested in being challenged or getting any better themselves -- they'll avoid pressure by giving you none.

Choose your relationships wisely.

[UDP]

Also, new policy for me:

Especially for someone who is intelligent and could someday come to understand socionics: try to NOT use socionics as much as possible when talking about relationships or whatever insights socionisc comes from.

incomplete learning of socionics can bring about ...... problematic understandings. Just like here on the forums.

I'm beginning to see socionics like another language, I suppose. I can 'read it' and 'intepret it' to other people, but speaking it to someone else, that's a whole other game. And if you're going to do that right, it will take time and effort. There are no shortcuts.

Furthermore, if you do endeavor for such, always keep in mind their relationship to (not just 'what socionics says', but, how they actually go about systematic thinking and handling contained, closed theories).

[ashlesha]

If you want to have a real relationship and be successful in a real sense, rather than just some sort of petty "I'm to stupid to understand reality, so I need someone to not suck at what I suck at" fashion, then you have to understand all the different aspects of what is going on. In reality you get no points for being able to only comprehend or operate in terms of what your ego block is.

I agree (with expat? and others?) that you are most often rewarded or liked for staying in your zone of strength (that is , focusing on and making contributions to via your ego block, your strong functions, even), but that is more for contributions and things you can actively 'provide'. (that's why I think it is somewhat advantageous to be in a relationship with someone in your quadra, esp complementing clubs...). HOWEVER, you get no bonus points for ignorance. No amount of cutness is going to make up for your own personal inability to comprehend the aspects of reality that are typically associated with your weak function.

If you are with someone who just laughs or finds that amusing - your patheticness - then chances are you're relationship won't involve much growth, or the other person is just as weak as you are and not interested in being challenged or getting any better themselves -- they'll avoid pressure by giving you none.

my understanding is that in dual relationships we help the other with their weak functions without conscious effort. my interpretation of what you've said is that we should go into a relationship with the intent of pushing our partner to improve, which seems wrong to me. am i understanding you right? shouldn't we be happy with who they are to begin with?

also, i can see on paper how Ni polr would be considered a "flaw" but i tend not to see it that way irl. how do you push someone to improve something that you don't see as being especially detrimental? this whole post just seems kind of merciless to me and foreign to how i understand duality working.

[Lobo]

my understanding is that in dual relationships we help the other with their weak functions without conscious effort. my interpretation of what you've said is that we should go into a relationship with the intent of pushing our partner to improve, which seems wrong to me. am i understanding you right? shouldn't we be happy with who they are to begin with?

You and Ryu just have different relationship goals. What gets him going is to have a partner that pushes him to improve and vice-versa, while yours might be to have someone that just accepts you for who you are and is supportive. I don't see it as a matter of who is wrong or right.

also, i can see on paper how Ni polr would be considered a "flaw" but i tend not to see it that way irl. how do you push someone to improve something that you don't see as being especially detrimental? this whole post just seems kind of merciless to me and foreign to how i understand duality working.

I agree with your view of not seeing the "flaw" in Ni polr, because it really isn't. It's just that, for some reason, nature has you focusing and being truly interested in a few functions while leaving others in the back burner (polr)... What ends up happening is that those that you don't focus on and develop will undoubtedly be weak. This is a common theme in the human body, if you think about it. You can relate functions to muscles that you like using and others than you just don't use and become smaller/weaker.

Speaking for myself, I tend to be uninterested in general towards someone's abilities in Ni matters. It's also something that is very instinctual for me that I actually don't understand how someone can have it as a polr. This is a good thing when dealing with someone who has Ni polr, because I will probably not criticize it (on purpose) and it might cause a somewhat nurturing environment. However, it doesn't mean that it won't cause problems in a relationship when things get deeper than platonic, or even in a work setting. It's bound to happen at some point. There are situations that will definitely benefit from a bigger Ni "muscle" than with chicken leg Ni. I don't believe people with chicken leg polr are doomed forever, or that you should just accept it as it is because it can't get any better... I personally think that working on your polr is a good life goal, and realizing the importance of it in areas you didn't think were important outside your comfort zone. It's part of being more self-aware and being in touch with reality, which I think everyone strives for or would be happy fulfilling.

[ashlesha]

You and Ryu just have different relationship goals. What gets him going is to have a partner that pushes him to improve and vice-versa, while yours might be to have someone that just accepts you for who you are and is supportive. I don't see it as a matter of who is wrong or right.

you're right. i was being too presumptuous about whats desirable in a relationship based on my own wants.

I personally think that working on your polr is a good life goal, and realizing the importance of it in areas you didn't think were important outside your comfort zone. It's part of being more self-aware and being in touch with reality, which I think everyone strives for or would be happy fulfilling.

i don't know if this is right or wrong, but i know that thinking about trying to improve my Se makes me feel like this:



i've heard a theory that working on the HA can have similar practical effects to working on the polr without the same kind of stress and i don't know much about this/if its true/how it would play out, but it sounds like a really appealing idea, haha.

[UDP]

my understanding is that in dual relationships we help the other with their weak functions without conscious effort. my interpretation of what you've said is that we should go into a relationship with the intent of pushing our partner to improve, which seems wrong to me. am i understanding you right? shouldn't we be happy with who they are to begin with?

But what does that really mean in terms of relationship reality? It sounds good on paper and seems 'reasonable', but I know plenty of duals who didn't do that for me - for various reasons, being they just didn't know me well, weren't interested, didn't know what to do, etc.

The only people who think "I'm supposed to help my dual with...." are people who know socionics, because that's operating within the framework of what socionics posits. THe reality of what is going on in a relationship, well, that's not the same.

I know people who are my duals that I've outrightly hurt and made not want to talk to me anymore. There's some on the forum. I know duals who don't like me, or I have rough patches with. what does socionics say about that?

In my opinion, nothing, because that's not really what socionics is trying to address. Based on tendencies and the nature of IE arrangements and that aspect of the psyche, certain 'favorable' interactions or arrangements might take place. But it doesn't mean somebody, in real life, is going to automatically cater to everything you need, or their personal semantics or past experiences are going to exactly fit your own.

also, i can see on paper how Ni polr would be considered a "flaw" but i tend not to see it that way irl. how do you push someone to improve something that you don't see as being especially detrimental? this whole post just seems kind of merciless to me and foreign to how i understand duality working.

I don't see a person's POLR as a flaw, it just is what it is.

But I see different layers of relationships, different ways they work and operate. If you want a relationship where you are comfortable clearly (in a conscious sense) designating certain things "that someone is good at", and someone else doesn't have to deal with, then so be it. But just because someone is a certain type relation to you doesn't, in any way, mean that a relationship is, in reality, following a set course of action.

I have prolonged contact with some "conflictors", yet, I enjoy their company and actively seek out their advice and friendship. According to, imo, a limited understanding of socionics, that "isn't right". And yet, the reality is so.


((I say "limited understanding of socionics" in the sense that, when building or practicing socionics, seeing "conflictors" as "bad relationships" and "duals" as good relationships" -- that helps you build familiarity with socionics and using the concepts and applying them. But, I think, that as you go further into socionics, you get to understand the interplay between what the theory actually comments on and what happens in reality. So while generalizations are useful for attempting to convey or transmit or express something, using them to actually diagnose reality and what is going on in relationship situations is another level. And that is what should be striven for in terms of actually understanding socionics - what socionics is, what it isn't, and how both of those things play into comprehending reality))

[UDP]

you're right. i was being too presumptuous about whats desirable in a relationship based on my own wants.



i don't know if this is right or wrong, but i know that thinking about trying to improve my Se makes me feel like this:

...

That's your choice. I know some EIIs who don't feel that way. EIIs (and delta NFs) seem to fall into two very broad categories about dealing with their POLRs (there are obviously much more than two categories...)

Those that sort of embrace it and openly accept or expect help from some outside source (Minde is this way somewhat), not particularly "ashamed" of their asking for help.

And those that reject all sorts of such a display would be ashamed, or see such a stance as weak or pathetic, (Lobo, Galen, others).

Variations on what Se polr is and how people deal with it. As far as "my" ni polr goes, I like other people to 'help' me with it, and I would like input on it, but I don't see myself as bowing down totally to someone else's Ni or seeking someone who will just dominate all Ni matters in my life for my benefit. I don't even know if that is possible, but, I've seen, for example, duals of my own who openly welcome pushing a great deal of Se metters onto someone else. I know LSEs who are so clueless about "Ni" stuff that they need someone to domineer them somewhat in that area, because they jut don't think about it or get it.


But again I guess that goes back to what kind of relationship you want, and what you want in terms of being challenged vs security. I'm wary about too much security because it's a form of stagnation. But I also actively seek out people to help me with certain things I need help in. I see it, heh, sort of as choosing your allies wisely, but not using them as a crutch, so you don't become dependent or weakened by them -- to put it in a raw wording.

i've heard a theory that working on the HA can have similar practical effects to working on the polr without the same kind of stress and i don't know much about this/if its true/how it would play out, but it sounds like a really appealing idea, haha.

I guess so. To me that's an idea that sounds nice in terms of socionics terminology but I don't know what it means in terms of doing things differently in reality.

Maybe I see things in more a sense of, perhaps basic, F T N S, undifferentiated with es or is - meaning "T" as in not or but both. Focusing on your HA might just be an easier way for you to deal with that element in general, but, it's just putting a different spin on things - whichever one is more "palatable" to you.

I think it is dangerous to only want to focus on, say, Si instead of Se. I think it can promote a maladaptive interpretation of reality; but that stems from my belief that you should still try to understand or comprehend what is going on as much as possible, regardless of how you prefer to interpret the situation. I think a hidden or unpronounced treasure of socionics is opening your mind up to what is actually going on in different channels of information (different elements, I guess), regardless of what you prefer. And realizing what your bias is likely to be based on what your own psychological structure is.

-- perhaps that will explain more what I was talking about when I said things about "insincerity" and only speaking to someone's functions and not to them.

[UDP]

Also... I really appreciate everyone's posts in this thread so far. I'm not particularly interested in arguing about what socionics is or isn't, but I like how people's responses have given me more to think about and cover. I enjoy that. I hope I don't seem too domineering in espousing my views, but, I wanted a place to do that

You and Ryu just have different relationship goals. What gets him going is to have a partner that pushes him to improve and vice-versa, while yours might be to have someone that just accepts you for who you are and is supportive. I don't see it as a matter of who is wrong or right.

I've found that, even broadly speaking about delta NFs, they help expand my perspective (which is sort of an Ne thing I suppose). But I really am "hot" for my current relationship in part because I think she totally blew me out of the water in terms of Ni matters - thinking about things I never considered or perspectives I never knew existed, and then getting me on track to thinking about actual long term plans and how things may or could progress.

I don't relish that I've lived my life being pathetic about certain matters of planning or long term vision, about time, or about seeing how things could unfold. I don't feel good about that.

But I like getting Fi spanked, so, what does that say about me? IDK.

I agree with your view of not seeing the "flaw" in Ni polr, because it really isn't. It's just that, for some reason, nature has you focusing and being truly interested in a few functions while leaving others in the back burner (polr)... What ends up happening is that those that you don't focus on and develop will undoubtedly be weak. This is a common theme in the human body, if you think about it. You can relate functions to muscles that you like using and others than you just don't use and become smaller/weaker.

Yeah. "Psychological lopsidedness".
I'm curious right now about how much lopsidedness is maladaptive and how much it is useful. To some extent, having a dominant hand, say, is useful- you know what to go to when you want to pick something up or write and you don't have to 'think' about which option to choose, you just do it. And you build strength and talent there.

I wonder how much that applies to psychological lopsidedness. I feel like I can train my hand fairly well, especially if I want to. And I feel like I can be somewhat ambidextrous. but having a clear hand for dominance does seem easier in some respects, too.

The thing about IEs though is that, when it comes down to it, it's not that I, say, like Te>Ti. I don't think Te is "better" than Ti. What I do think, in reality, is that a balanced person focusing on Te is just so much more blatantly appealing than an unbalanced or 'undeveloped' or 'immature' person using Ti. I don't really know what to make of that. I seem to have a clear preference for thought systems only being useful if they support a productive end, so to say. But I honestly don't see that being unique to me or 'my type' - I feel I know some Ti domiants who are also that way.

I guess is just more comfortable for me, like is more comfortable for me. I wonder if I could trace back, somehow, how I felt about such differences - the Te/Fi vs Ti/Fe dichotomy, say - growing up. Or what provoked such, or how or when I realized I was one more than the other.

My favorite people are people who are skilled at both - like I've said, I know some IEIs I''m really, really, tight with. IEIs that I'll be invited to their weddings, etc. I see them as being good with "Fi" and "Fe". So IDK what to make of that.

Speaking for myself, I tend to be uninterested in general towards someone's abilities in Ni matters. It's also something that is very instinctual for me that I actually don't understand how someone can have it as a polr.

That's interesting. I see very easily how people can have Se polrs. One of the first thing I always notice wherever I go or meet someone is how they deal with Se.

This is a good thing when dealing with someone who has Ni polr, because I will probably not criticize it (on purpose) and it might cause a somewhat nurturing environment. However, it doesn't mean that it won't cause problems in a relationship when things get deeper than platonic, or even in a work setting. It's bound to happen at some point. There are situations that will definitely benefit from a bigger Ni "muscle" than with chicken leg Ni. I don't believe people with chicken leg polr are doomed forever, or that you should just accept it as it is because it can't get any better... I personally think that working on your polr is a good life goal, and realizing the importance of it in areas you didn't think were important outside your comfort zone. It's part of being more self-aware and being in touch with reality, which I think everyone strives for or would be happy fulfilling.

I agree with that.

A lot of my 'concerns' about rrelationships and being challenged or addressing POLR - that's all because I see practical benefit, as I described earlier. I see it as enriching my life and expanding my experience and comprehension of reality. I tend to think that is a 'good' thing' and beneficial for everyone.

But perhaps it's not. Perhaps it is better for some people to not pursue such development or expansion. I don't agree with that, but, I guess it's a possibility.

[UDP]

Sometimes you have to be strong for people.
They won't ask you, but they secretly desire you to be that way.

[UDP]

...related to the above somewhat,

The curious thing is that when males (or whoever, but yes, I'm singling out a lot of guys here), try to be 'strong' it is this strange combination of egoism and fear, trying to funnel it all into looking strong. The only people who really follow it or rejoice from it are those who also want their own weaknesses enabled, too.

But to really be strong means a certain willingness to face the hard things about life and to do it with an open mind, honestly looking at what is and what is not. No type or function is actually related to that; it's ultimately what I'm trying to address here tells the tale of how a person plays out their psychological type.

[07490]

I didn't read the whole thread but i would comment on your quote.

...related to the above somewhat,

The curious thing is that when males (or whoever, but yes, I'm singling out a lot of guys here), try to be 'strong' it is this strange combination of egoism and fear, trying to funnel it all into looking strong. The only people who really follow it or rejoice from it are those who also want their own weaknesses enabled, too.

I don't really understand the last part, but the people who put so much emphasis on being strong, to me they are a bit insecure, but people who are strong, in my opinion, can be any type, is people who i seen as taking more than they can handle in any situation. of course you will have some type who is intrinsically stronger than others by their natural mode of behavior, that to me doesn't make them strong. it's one reason why I admired most ILI or even at times LII because they do try their very best until they get overwhelmed.

But to really be strong means a certain willingness to face the hard things about life and to do it with an open mind, honestly looking at what is and what is not. No type or function is actually related to that; it's ultimately what I'm trying to address here tells the tale of how a person plays out their psychological type.

yes, how they play out their psychological types or by comparing them to the same type and see the kind of differences. like why would you compare a minivan and a sports car and ask which one is better.

[stray]

^I never liked being around male posturing (which is all it is). It's even worse to hear other people validate it out of their own sense of weakness - and then get cocky in their expectations of "men", all the while being useless themselves (which is fine by me if you are.. I'm not knocking uselessness. Heh. I'm lazy too. I just hate seeing it get warped into some demand that other people rescue you and live up to everything you're not).

I don't know what my type is atm, but if you want sincerity, that's my own take on that matter.

I'm rambling here probably and possibly being totally irrelevant. Not sure how to use the above in an example. It brings to mind one girl who I didn't even know liked me that much just insult me one day by telling me I should be more "aggressive". "What?" If she liked me that bad, then she should have been aggressive herself.

[UDP]

Confession:

I think I've spent a large portion of my life trying to figure who I am and who I should be, and even used socionics somewhat to that extent - trying to put some sort of outside framework into understanding my own self, because I didn't know what I am or who i was.

Kind of that scenario of a soldier just being a soldier and not really knowing what he was fighting for, just following orders - I relate to that.

Ironically, with help from a delta NF, I've been trying to understand myself in sort of deeper or more 'personal' sense. Almost like some sort of way of dealing with my own personal vision (maybe Ni-Fi-Ne stuff?IDK). It's 'led me away' from socionics in one sense, but I don't think negatively about what socionics is. I guess I just have another angle or understanding in terms of where socionics lay, in proximity to other areas of life/a person's inner makeup. A more complete picture, if you will.

(this sort of answers some of the questions I've had, as per my blog and other things, about what to do in regard to how I was feeling about socionics)

...that's the backstory, partially, behind "Create-Your-Self"...
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=33698

[Suz]

^I never liked being around male posturing (which is all it is). It's even worse to hear other people validate it out of their own sense of weakness - and then get cocky in their expectations of "men", all the while being useless themselves (which is fine by me if you are.. I'm not knocking uselessness. Heh. I'm lazy too. I just hate seeing it get warped into some demand that other people rescue you and live up to everything you're not).

I don't know what my type is atm, but if you want sincerity, that's my own take on that matter.

I'm rambling here probably and possibly being totally irrelevant. Not sure how to use the above in an example. It brings to mind one girl who I didn't even know liked me that much just insult me one day by telling me I should be more "aggressive". "What?" If she liked me that bad, then she should have been aggressive herself.

I didn't realize this is how you guys feel. Or that that would be an insult to you.

But didn't you like her back? I guess not enough...

What about someone calling you an alcoholic. Would that insult you?

[UDP]

^I never liked being around male posturing (which is all it is). It's even worse to hear other people validate it out of their own sense of weakness - and then get cocky in their expectations of "men", all the while being useless themselves (which is fine by me if you are.. I'm not knocking uselessness. Heh. I'm lazy too. I just hate seeing it get warped into some demand that other people rescue you and live up to everything you're not).

I don't know what my type is atm, but if you want sincerity, that's my own take on that matter.

I'm rambling here probably and possibly being totally irrelevant. Not sure how to use the above in an example. It brings to mind one girl who I didn't even know liked me that much just insult me one day by telling me I should be more "aggressive". "What?" If she liked me that bad, then she should have been aggressive herself.

She wanted you to do what she couldn't do herself. I've had victim women be that way towards me at times - because they liked me and I was 'being nice' but they were frustrated that I wasn't pursuing them openly. It was really because i wasn't into them. But their disappointment or nervousness about the situation came out in saying I wasn't being forward enough.

people are funny.

It's kind of odd in that I've actually been more approached by infantile women directly than by victim women, in some respects.

[stray]

I didn't realize this is how you guys feel. Or that that would be an insult to you.

But didn't you like her back? I guess not enough...

What about someone calling you an alcoholic. Would that insult you?

Well..I hate to be literal, but I barely drink, so I probably wouldn't know what to make of that.

It's ironic you say that though because that particular girl was an alcoholic. The friendship was somewhat based on me wanting her to get help.

Anyways, it's just my take. I don't know if it's a type thing. Apparently the SLI/SEI style is a "caregiver" role? I need to read up on the different styles now.

I always was more forward when I was younger, but at this point, I don't want to think about it as much. I prefer someone expressing interest, getting to know me, and not holding me up to some standard or expecting me to play out an "aggressor" role, for sure.

[UDP]

Ryu Suggests:

Next time you see her, say hi, and ask how she's doing, then interrupt her, have this song playing in the background, and say "and I'm to sexy for this conversation" - *turn and walk out* ...

[Suz]

Well..I hate to be literal, but I barely drink, so I probably wouldn't know what to make of that.

It's ironic you say that though because that particular girl was an alcoholic. The friendship was somewhat based on me wanting her to get help.

Anyways, it's just my take. I don't know if it's a type thing. Apparently the SLI/SEI style is a "caregiver" role? I need to read up on the different styles now.

I always was more forward when I was younger, but at this point, I don't want to think about it as much. I prefer someone expressing interest, getting to know me, and not holding me up to some standard or expecting me to play out an "aggressor" role, for sure.

since this is the graveyard, i hope Ryu doesnt mind the derail .

Well the reason I asked about the "alcoholic" insult is because when I was hurt at the SLI i knew ignoring a note I wrote to him just asking him how he was doing, I did sort of call him that (or rather i publically asked him whether he was an alcoholic). He does sort of have a fixation on going out to bars for drinks and at that point said something about being at a bar at 8am. I dont think he's really an alcoholic though.

It felt cathartic for like 10 minutes but then i felt soooo guilty and unempathetic and terrible. I ended up apologizing and he said it wasn't a big deal and he has no hard feelings but he has sort of made a couple comments since then that makes me think I did hurt him. (if it was one of his drinking buddies who called him that it would have obviously been a joke, but I am more like you in that i barely touch alcohol--just minimal interest in it). That was like a year ago--I still feel sort of guilty about it.


Tell me, why do you guys ignore friendly emails? I just can't understand it. It's so hurtful...especially when i'm trying to reach out in friendship.

[Suz]

She wanted you to do what she couldn't do herself. I've had victim women be that way towards me at times - because they liked me and I was 'being nice' but they were frustrated that I wasn't pursuing them openly. It was really because i wasn't into them. But their disappointment or nervousness about the situation came out in saying I wasn't being forward enough.

people are funny.

It's kind of odd in that I've actually been more approached by infantile women directly than by victim women, in some respects.

You have a point Ryu.

Unless i totally read the guy wrong, I felt interest from that SLI guy I knew, which obviously fueled my interest in him. it was like I didn't really NEED him to pursue me. In fact when the vibes sort of culminated and he shot me a really HOT sexy stare, I found that sort of intimidating and flustering actually and i didn't really know what to do with that.

The other major sort of "aggressive" thing he did was he "bumped" his groin into my knee as he was passing me (I was sitting with my legs crossed). I felt embarrassed and i wasn't sure if it was an accident or not. Actually I'm still not sure. The rest was mostly nonverbal communication and giving each other attention and just things i can't really verbalize.

I think if we had more time together things would have developed more. :frown: But a couple months after i moved away he got himself a girlfriend. That was right as i was reaching out in friendship to him (albeit long-distance). I did sort of hint at my interest, and finally i did confess my feelings (in writing). Which he ALSO never responded to. I mean, i understand feelings aren't always mutual. He could have said he didn't feel that way about me. Why leave me hanging???

anyway my point is that infantiles dont really like it when people are too aggressive and are pretty perceptive to more subtle signals (maybe even reach too much into things not sure.) I think in particular the delta NFs because we speak the "Fi language" not the "Fe language"

[stray]

:Tell me, why do you guys ignore friendly emails? I just can't understand it. It's so hurtful...especially when i'm trying to reach out in friendship.

Well..As I indicated on our wall posts, I might not be SLI. In fact, I noticed this is a common complaint with SLIs (also in mbti apparently), and I don't display that behavior. I must be a different type. FWIW, I think that's uncool too. I only have one life. I welcome anyone who reaches out. The people I don't want to be friends with are those who actually showed something I considered "bad" or couldn't trust them. Even if someone is afraid of being in a relationship, it's not logical to diss people who want to be friends. I don't understand all of the people out there who do it. That's my 2c.

[UDP]

since this is the graveyard, i hope Ryu doesnt mind the derail .

There is no script or set direction here. It's kind of like a tavern, kind of like "Si column", kind of something else. I want things to be addressed in a natural format.

Tell me, why do you guys ignore friendly emails? I just can't understand it. It's so hurtful...especially when i'm trying to reach out in friendship.

I don't really know who "you guys" is supposed to be. I don't fit into that grouping. Maybe the person doesn't respond to emails well, maybe they don't like you, I don't know.

[CILi]

You have a point Ryu.

Unless I totally read the guy wrong, I felt interest from that SLI guy, I knew which obviously fueled my interest. in him It was like, "I didn't really NEED him to pursue me." In fact when The vibes sort of culminated and he shot me a really HOT sexy stare, I found that sort of intimidating and flustering actually. ...And I didn't really know what to do with that.

The other major sort of "aggressive" thing he did was He "bumped" his groin into my knee as he was passing me (I was sitting with my legs. crossed) I felt embarrassed and I wasn't sure if it was an accident. Actually I'm Still, not sure the rest was mostly nonverbal, communication, and giving each other attention and just things I can't really verbalize.

I think if we had more time together things would have developed more. :frown: But a couple months after I moved away he got himself a girlfriend. That was right As I was reaching out in friendship to him (albeit long-distance). I did sort of hint at my interest, and finally I "did confess my feelings", (in writing). Which he also never responded. to I mean, I understand feelings aren't always mutual. He could have said he didn't feel that way about me. Why leave me hanging???

Anyway, my point is that infantiles don't really like it when people are too aggressive and are pretty perceptive to more subtle signals (maybe even reach too much into "things," not sure). I think in particular the Delta NFs. because we speak the "Fi language" not the "Fe language".

Good story, WA!

[UDP]

The more I go I kind of see delta NFs as these happy creatures that just deep down want a long lasting relationship somewhere with someone. It's kind of nice.

[Suz]

The more I go I kind of see delta NFs as these happy creatures that just deep down want a long lasting relationship somewhere with someone. It's kind of nice.

True, but not just *anyone* though...

[Suz]

Good story, WA!

CILs u didn't like my story??

[CILi]

Dr. WA,

I loved it.

~ CILi

P.S.: Did the quote formatting not show for you?

[Suz]

Dr. WA,

I loved it.

~ CILi

P.S.: Did the quote formatting not show for you?

lol@ the confused2 emoticon!

it looked like you blocked out entire phrases and changed the whole meaning of the story!

p.s. I saw "Short Circuit" last night!! Anything related to that is my reminder of CILi...

[Suz]

There is no script or set direction here. It's kind of like a tavern, kind of like "Si column", kind of something else. I want things to be addressed in a natural format.

I don't really know who "you guys" is supposed to be. I don't fit into that grouping. Maybe the person doesn't respond to emails well, maybe they don't like you, I don't know.

oh "you guys" was directed at SLIs

I know you would never do something like that.

[CILi]

p.s. I saw "Short Circuit" last night!! Anything related to that is my reminder of CILi...

Now that's some input.

(...Input for another graveyard. Sorry, Ryu.)

[UDP]

Sometimes, I just see various psychological schemas and rationalizations that people create and make for themselves, to get by. It's unpleasant because I wonder about such authenticity.

And I wonder if I'm any different, or if I'm just ........ whatever. If I'm just the same way myself. I wish I had a rationalization I could believe in : /

[UDP]

I wonder if this is me:

Description: Nothing escapes the notice of the men and women who have Vigilant personality style. These individuals posess an exceptional awareness of their environment. Call them Survivors. Their sensory antennae, continuously scanning the people and situations around them, alert them immediately to what is awry, out of place, dissonant, or dangerous, especially in their dealings with other people. Vigilant types have a special kind of hearing. They are immediately aware of the mixed messages, the hidden motivations, the evasions, and the subtlest distortions of the truth that elude or delude less gifted observers. With such a focus, Vigilant individuals naturally assume the roles of social critic, watchdog, ombudsman, and crusader in their private or our public domain, ready to spring upon the improprieties -- especially the abuses of power -- that poison human affairs.

[UDP]

The world is so different from what I 'perceived' growing up. Yet, even more 'frightening', is that a lot of the things I felt wrong or awry actually are so. I guess that's part of getting older, realizing how shitty it is.

I suspect that peoples types become more clear as they age because of that - the life experiences sift and erode so much that mechanisms for dealing with things become so set in place; there is less trying to find your feet and more emphasis on using what you know will work, or at least, know will work 'for you'.

But that also scares me some.
As I was thinking earlier today, it's not even so much that children are ' a lot more flexible', it's that they use their joints and run around more. Most adults don't do that. So yes, it's ability, but it's also simply what you do.

I don't want to get old, and .... brittle.

[UDP]

also