I do sometimes wonder if Socionics talks (or assumes, for that matter) too much that certain Socionics relationships will be positive, when they seem far more idealized.Originally Posted by discojoe
I do sometimes wonder if Socionics talks (or assumes, for that matter) too much that certain Socionics relationships will be positive, when they seem far more idealized.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I generally agree with the points discojoe and Logos made, and I agree with niffweed that that's more of a LIE-ESI than ILI-SEE issue.
Still, I'd like to know from Ezra what he exactly meant.
My comment is this -- I think LIEs (and perhaps ILIs, to some extent) prefer to give others the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity of intentions. So, it's not so much "I will take him at face value" but often "hmm, he may have ulterious motives, but I don't know, that may be unfair, so for the moment I will take him at face value" and keep an eye open -- or at least try to. Of course, often, that's not enough.
In such situations, if it turns out that the person had indeed ulterior motives, the reaction is more of disappointment and low-key anger at myself, with a self-warning to be more careful in the future.
In the situations where I was totally caught off-guard, then, the reaction is much more -- intense, and includes cutting off the person totally, if at all possible.
The ESI's role is indeed to say "of course he has ulterior motives!".
And by the way, this is pretty much what I meant in my "Fe-Ti and Fi-Te filters" thread -- it is the Fi filter that tells you such things regarding invididuals.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I think I understand precisely what Ezra is reffering to, because I have observed it myself as well, and I think the responses so far are mostly off point.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Well, can you elaborate, then?
I was so expecting this question.Anyway, I wish I could explain but I don't think I can. Maybe something like, you will accept certain things/conclusions as long as they are in complete accordance to your own beliefs/knowledge, and if you later gain new knowledge on the same subject/things than you might change your opinion, sometimes even drastically, no matter how contradicting it would be to the previous one you 've had or something... But I don't know, this is lame, I better let Ezra explain what he's talking about, because I might as well be missing his point too.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Right -- and perhaps you can tell me, in your own words, what is remarkable about what you just described?
Who said there was something remarkable about it? And the way I explained it is even less remarkable. I can't believe I actually wrote that shit, it doesn't seem to have much substance and it makes me look almost incredibly stupid. Anyways, I am sort of cranky, I haven't slept for almost two days now and I shouldn't have written that.
Last edited by Park; 08-19-2008 at 10:30 AM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Why wouldn't anyone change their views when they get new info? I can see how it could be specific maybe to valuing Te but it seems like it's a pretty natural way to react to getting new information. If new information contradicts something you thought was correct, you learn you were wrong and move on with the new information. Why is that bad or weird?I was so expecting this question.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Maybe cognitive dissonance plays a major role.
"Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."
- Voltaire
No one said it was. (at least I didn't...)
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
i may have to read that thread because that is what i do, which i believed to be Fe reading that stuff in people.
It is, as well. Fe is what makes you read between the lines, including of what a person says and does, rather than "just" read the lines themselves.
Fe, however, does that in a more general, dynamic, "impersonal" way. Fi is what then puts it in a structure -- as in, "that person can't be trusted".
Reply With Quote
