The people you hate the most are in your quadra

[Bertrand]

bring on the SEEs

[mclane]

lmfao
@Bertrand do you really think you're duals with Chae after this interaction? Your verbosity and high level of abstraction is super unlike SLI... you can change back to ILI imo.

by contrast look at how mclane condensed his conclusions to short info points here in a way that nobody else in this thread did, and how much Chae liked it: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1176461

IEE Te HA isn't interested in thinking about an Ni whirlwhind of info. it just wants to grab the key points and go.

Even though I'm flattered by this statement, this does not exclude Bertrand from being SLI. We could simply be different subtypes; Si subtype SLI has the +Ni pathway strengthened (+Ni is in their DS). By contrast, Te subtype SLI has -Ni strengthened (role function), while also engaging in -Te demonstrative. This makes Te subtype SLI more synthetic in their thinking than Si subtype.

[niffer]

Even though I'm flattered by this statement, this does not exclude Bertrand from being SLI. We could simply be different subtypes; Si subtype SLI has the +Ni pathway strengthened (+Ni is in their DS).

you still think so even with the degree that he reaches with his thinking style? i guess i'm not excluded from being EII either from your POV?

probability >>> possibility.

[Bertrand]

Even though I'm flattered by this statement, this does not exclude Bertrand from being SLI. We could simply be different subtypes; Si subtype SLI has the +Ni pathway strengthened (+Ni is in their DS).

I also was conditioned by betas to not be "allowed" my thoughts unless they were thoroughly laid out in a Ti system and went so far as to study philosophy to try and understand the world in such a way, I think subconsciously, so I could explain it to people who could not accept me until I could (highly religious unhealthy IEI (maybe EIE) mother); either way Te had no place so I've made a habit of not explaining myself in that way, even though internally I think in precisely that way

it just comes out a lot, and its no wonder I've had trouble with duals whereas SEIs and stuff absolutely love me (but I don't really find them special, mean as that is)

I feel like my parents were subconsciously seeking and treating me as if I should be a xLE, and sometimes I put off that vibe because I adapted to that conditioning in some ways

[niffer]

I also was conditioned by betas to not be "allowed" my thoughts unless they were thoroughly laid out in a Ti system and went so far as to study philosophy to try and understand the world in such a way, I think subconsciously, so I could explain it to people who could not accept me until I could (highly religious unhealthy IEI (maybe EIE) mother); either way Te had no place so I've made a habit of not explaining myself in that way, even though internally I think in precisely that way

it just comes out a lot, and its no wonder I've had trouble with duals and SEIs and stuff absolutely love me (but I don't really find them special, mean as that is)

i thought you said your dad was an SEI though? still, that sounds pretty crappy. they were seeking double the amount of Ti in that case. beta STs are a lot more concise, so if that balancing influence was around that wouldn't have turned into a problem like that most likely where they shifted their neediness to you.

[Bertrand]

i thought you said your dad was an SEI though? still, that sounds pretty crappy. they were seeking double the amount of Ti in that case. beta STs are a lot more concise, so if that balancing influence was around that wouldn't have turned into a problem like that most likely where they shifted their neediness to you.

yes, nail on head. I had a lot of resentment towards my dad in precisely that way; before I even knew of socionics I always felt he should have been "more of a man." If he was ESTP I doubt we'd be here. in the end, maybe he did me a favor though. hes not a bad guy, my mom just completely dominated him and he never really stood up to her, even for his own kids

I had an uncle I looked up to as more of a father figure and I think he was EII, which isn't exactly manly but he had certain qualities I absolutely needed

[niffer]

yes, nail on head. I had a lot of resentment towards my dad in precisely that way; before I even knew of socionics I always felt he should have been "more of a man." If he was ESTP I doubt we'd be here. in the end, maybe he did me a favor though. hes not a bad guy, my mom just completely dominated him and he never really stood up to her, even for his own kids

I had an uncle I looked up to as more of a father figure and I think he was EII, which isn't exactly manly but he had certain qualities I absolutely needed

lol, even EII is more manly than either of those types if they're both xEI. at least he wouldn't be a logics polr and he'd have more Te than them.

my parents are both Te ego and i did not respect them much as parents, but a lot of it was probably because of the relationship they were in (supervision). i looked up to my LIE-ESI grandparents as guardians instead.

[Bertrand]

lol, even EII is more manly than either of those types if they're both xEI. at least he wouldn't be a logics polr and he'd have more Te than them.

my parents are both Te ego and i did not respect them much as parents, but a lot of it was probably because of the relationship they were in (supervision). i looked up to my LIE-ESI grandparents as guardians instead.

yeah I know how that feels and it was weird my parents totally picked up on it too but there wasn't anything to be done about it... they kind of didn't like my uncle but probably didn't know why. I feel bad for them now, thinking about it, they were probably insecure about their own kid respecting this other guy and not them

[niffer]

bring on the SEEs

lmao, i know everyone finds SEEs hot but if you're wishing that out loud, that might be another indicator to double-check

[niffer]

yeah I know how that feels and it was weird my parents totally picked up on it too but there wasn't anything to be done about it... they kind of didn't like my uncle but probably didn't know why. I feel bad for them now, thinking about it, they were probably insecure about their own kid respecting this other guy and not them

your job isn't to worry about your parents' insecurities; it's to worry about growing up properly to be an independent and respectable person, and it seems like that you did. if anything they grew from the experience and it was good for them, and lucky them they had some kind of role model around for their kids.

[Bertrand]

lmao, i know everyone finds SEEs hot but if you're wishing that out loud, that might be another indicator to double-check

I like them both honestly, but it feels like IEE likes me more than SEE, but it might just be the particular people involved

your job isn't to worry about your parents' insecurities; it's to worry about growing up properly to be an independent and respectable person, and it seems like that you did. if anything they grew from the experience and it was good for them, and lucky them they had some kind of role model around for their kids.

yeah I agree, fuck em

[Exodus]

This does seem to be true for Betas, since they identify the most with their values and fight against others who oppose them. Gilly's post demonstrates this very well. (I would also say that intraquadra conflict most often occurs between an introvert and an extrovert, for all quadras.)

I don't think it is true for the other quadras though. Gammas (at least Gamma NTs) seem to hate Betas the most as well. With Si valuers it's more haphazard but the people who tend to create the most vehement reactions in general are usually types with high Se.

Disgust is fear of being infringed on, experiencing betrayal is fear of being left alone, perceiving disrespect is fear of being put down, resentment is fear of not being appropriate, callousness is fear of feeling inferior and disadvantaged, disillusionment - yes, since sadness > fear in that case.

You seem to be confusing dislike with fear. You can dislike something or someone without being afraid of it, for example if it is irritating.

[Singu]

People hate each other mostly for political reasons. Put two groups of people together with differing political beliefs, and you'd be sure that there'd be fervent conflicts.

People may hate their identicals due to projecting the qualities that they don't like in themselves, as well as that they may notice the negative qualities that they don't like in themselves more in their identicals.

Anyway, this whole idea seems to go against the idea of Socionics inter-type relationships, BECAUSE they are supposed to be relative. Everyone is supposed to have more or less the same reactions with certain type relations.

[Chae]

You seem to be confusing dislike with fear. You can dislike something or someone without being afraid of it, for example if it is irritating.

Partly. Irritation is likely a very subtle threat already because it introduces an element of insecurity --> again, being afraid of things falling apart. It's a level below. But I see we can agree to disagree on this

[The Reality Denialist]

As self-proclaimed misanthrope I'd say all but as solipsist most of all myself.

OK, not really although I think I have bit of latter in some way.

[LuckyOne]

I feel like this way of thinking falls into the same camp as psychological egoism, which is just because all acts can be interpreted as selfish does not mean that that is actually the case, rather it is symptomatic of an overbroad conception of selfishness. I think your conception of fear is likewise functioning in a similar way--this is a systemic Ti issue, with what you call fear actually being something like "negative affect" in general, and you're working from the ground up with "fear" filling that role. True, it could be the case that you could interpret fear as being at root of all these things, but I think that entails a subtle and overbroad extension of fear in order to make it fill that role. Realize that fear has a specific definition and connotations for most people that differ from the meaning you have assigned it. if all you did was replace "fear" with negative affect I don't think anyone could really disagree with you, and in the sense that I automatically kind of do that in my head in order to better "get" your point I don't really disagree with you either, but you're never going to convince everyone "fear" is at the root of everything because fear has specifically been defined as having a separate and distinct domain from the get-go

the part of fear that makes it also a part of everything else is not the whole measure amounting to "fear" but that negative affect that is common cause to fear and all the subsequent things you link it to

in other words, there is something in fear that is also in everything else you've linked it to, but there's also something more to fear that is not in some of those other things. I think a Te + Si understanding is making a link here of a kind of personal experience where you're feeling it first hand, but its getting hung up on how it is formulating its conclusions abstractly.

its basically nitpicking, from my point of view, but you should know its happening because otherwise you're going to be fruitlessly talking at people, not really with them

to make the comparison to egoism, the idea is every act confers with it some kind of perceived benefit, hence it has a reason for acting in that manner, but the consequence of calling every act inherently selfish explodes the notion of altriusm or selflessness in general, and here in the same way, every emotion we feel on the basis of something bad (potentially) happening has within in it the potential to cause fear or be fearful in some way--that is because the "badness" of the act is "bad" in virtue that we want to avoid or prevent it in some way--inasmuch as that is the case we can say we "fear" it, but fear is a more specific concept that reducing all negative emotion to fear has the consequence of making everyone essentially "living in fear" which is meaningless if that is the case, because people are not simply driven solely by fear and even if that were the case it would mess with our understanding of courage, and a whole host of other values... it would make moral thinking more or less impossible and it basically serves to reduce out all the difficulty in understanding the human condition; in a word its reductionist. it is appealing because it purports to teach us something, but i think it actually would lead to more ignorance in the long run. the idea is we can't just all be acting in fear, because there's a weird kind of determinism to that where we each have our factual circumstances and we're living out our fear in reaction to them, and human conflict is this kind of mechanistic interplay between avoidance of fear and limited resources and the whole thing, in consequence, removes out all the moral complexity to human interactions. you have to in some sense channel negative emotion apart from fear, even towards fear, to move forward sometimes. in other words, this entire discussion requires a negative response to fear, in essence "fear of fear" in your system to produce a system of morality where agency is really possible and if fear of fear is free will or agency or courage or morality the whole thing just devolves into an absurdity

all of these theories that collapse human experience into less sophisticated categories have this problem where they essentially turn on a kind of determinism at their very root. as soon as you make anything fear based or selfishness based or love based exclusively it makes humans into robots in its implications. I know you probably don't believe that, but that is its logical consequence. the only way to really capture humanity as a kind of unified tension of opposites, where fear is held at bay by something else and that things like disgust can arise from, say, courage and rather than fear, because disgust is the gut level response to evil that is not fear based by definition, whereas gut level response to many other threatening things, is fear. but to maintain the tension of opposites we have other words and concepts that cant be reduced out otherwise the system falls apart. just like no one "actually" believes everyone is selfish in their real life, except on the most superficial abstract level, I likewise don't think you don't think morality exists, but for those that perceive the long range implications of what you're saying here, its like you're saying something to that effect. so while it may be ok for you to think in these terms, because you ultimately believe something different than what you're objectively expressing, don't expect the fear theory to really catch on

I can't believe I missed the follow up to my post (weirdly enough I didn't get the "Quote" message) but you win

It's indeed a case of I'm-the-center-of-the-universe-and-anyone-who-dislikes-me-is-actually-afraid-of-me-because-I'm-so-badass-and-awesome mentality. They try to make it seem about things outside of the being itself by using "professional" language, but it's just a cover.

my point is just that fear is not the root of all hate, but I could see how someone might think that

but people are driven by fear, in general, to a far greater extent than they probably realize

Yes, I can see it too. Egos relate everything back to themselves, so it's only natural that they'll expect everyone else to feel like they do. I guess it also makes them feel better about themselves, so they don't feel like they're scared on their own

[Syynth]

LIIs - Sometimes they can be hard to be around because they remind me of my own insecurities, though this doesn't lead to hate...
ILEs - Can be assholes, but usually not on purpose.
SFs - Too cute to hate.

[Muddy]

I only hate people who give me a bad attitude and show me a general lack of respect, whatever those types might be. Often I will resist doing something for someone purely out of spite if I feel that aren't taking my interest into consideration and are just trying to strong-arm me into doing something for their own agenda. If instead the person is agreeable and treats me as his/her kin rather then some tool I can be quite generous in what I'm willing to do for them, regardless of their background or political beliefs.

[Exodus]

Partly. Irritation is likely a very subtle threat already because it introduces an element of insecurity --> again, being afraid of things falling apart. It's a level below.

This speaks volumes about your worldview.

But I see we can agree to disagree on this

yep.

[Chae]

This speaks volumes about your worldview.

yep.

Likewise

[Shining]

This speaks volumes about your worldview.



yep.

All emotions (and so irritation) are manifestation of some fear concealed behind imo.

[Aylen]

I don't really hate people. It is a drain on my energy so I prefer no one has that kind of power over me. I have disliked people who may, or may not be, in my quadra but those come and go. It is more like, I hate behavior but even that is a temporary feeling, if they change it I will not hold it against them. If they don't I will keep my distance.

Hate makes you all shriveled up and ugly, inside and out.

[Bertrand]

I feel like if you love, unless you're perfect, you're going to hate. I feel like indifference is the absence of love and hate is just corrupted love. I feel like since I love some people I almost necessarily have to hate others, because some people are opposite and stand for different things, but its hate in the sense that I would love no one at all if I didn't hate them, or worse, I'd hate those I love if I loved them. I don't want to hate people though, and maybe I don't hate them, just their actions? but honestly that feels like a disingenuous separation. I hate it when people say stuff like "hate the sin love the sinner" because honestly its usually to defend hating the sinner and loving the sin, in a weird way--so I'm not gonna play that game

I feel like hate isn't really a bad thing. I think its a human thing and that hate is bad only when its flowing from an evil heart. I think righteous hearts hate rightly, and although that means that everyone thinks they're right, thus everyone thinks they have a right to their hate, right or wrong, which means event he 9/11 hijackers probably thought good of themselves. I don't think taking hate off the table changes that, it just pushes it underground... in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they said they didn't hate anyone. I think when you admit to hating you have to take responsibility for it and ask yourself why you hate something and then maybe you can make some progress if you're honest with yourself about it. I also think hate, and how you respond to it are different things. I hate people but I also believe in tolerance for example. People have a right to live, but we also have laws. laws prevent chaos and violence, but you'll never legislate people's hearts--mine included. I feel its okay to hate but if you murder someone you will face the consequences. I don't feel like we can ever eradicate hate, but I think we can organize ourselves in such a way to minimize the damage from the dark side of humanity. I feel like everyone has to take responsibility for their own acts and emotions and at the end of the day if someone wants to hate or break the law, only God can really say whether it was objectively justified... for everyone else we live by our hearts and weigh the consequences and whatever is going to happen is going to happen. I definitely hate though. I don't think its necessarily a bad thing

[Chae]

I feel like if you love, unless you're perfect, you're going to hate. I feel like indifference is the absence of love and hate is just corrupted love. I feel like since I love some people I almost necessarily have to hate others, because some people are opposite and stand for different things, but its hate in the sense that I would love no one at all if I didn't hate them, or worse, I'd hate those I love if I loved them. I don't want to hate people though, and maybe I don't hate them, just their actions? but honestly that feels like a disingenuous separation. I hate it when people say stuff like "hate the sin love the sinner" because honestly its usually to defend hating the sinner and loving the sin, in a weird way--so I'm not gonna play that game

I feel like hate isn't really a bad thing. I think its a human thing and that hate is bad only when its flowing from an evil heart. I think righteous hearts hate rightly, and although that means that everyone thinks they're right, thus everyone thinks they have a right to their hate, right or wrong, which means event he 9/11 hijackers probably thought good of themselves. I don't think taking hate off the table changes that, it just pushes it underground... in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they said they didn't hate anyone. I think when you admit to hating you have to take responsibility for it and ask yourself why you hate something and then maybe you can make some progress if you're honest with yourself about it. I also think hate, and how you respond to it are different things. I hate people but I also believe in tolerance for example. People have a right to live, but we also have laws. laws prevent chaos and violence, but you'll never legislate people's hearts--mine included. I feel its okay to hate but if you murder someone you will face the consequences. I don't feel like we can ever eradicate hate, but I think we can organize ourselves in such a way to minimize the damage from the dark side of humanity. I feel like everyone has to take responsibility for their own acts and emotions and at the end of the day if someone wants to hate or break the law, only God can really say whether it was objectively justified... for everyone else we live by our hearts and weigh the consequences and whatever is going to happen is going to happen. I definitely hate though. I don't think its necessarily a bad thing

Dang Bert The is real!

[Bertrand]

Dang Bert The is real!

I feel like I have a little Dreiser in me

[Aylen]

I feel like if you love, unless you're perfect, you're going to hate. I feel like indifference is the absence of love and hate is just corrupted love. I feel like since I love some people I almost necessarily have to hate others, because some people are opposite and stand for different things, but its hate in the sense that I would love no one at all if I didn't hate them, or worse, I'd hate those I love if I loved them. I don't want to hate people though, and maybe I don't hate them, just their actions? but honestly that feels like a disingenuous separation. I hate it when people say stuff like "hate the sin love the sinner" because honestly its usually to defend hating the sinner and loving the sin, in a weird way--so I'm not gonna play that game

I feel like hate isn't really a bad thing. I think its a human thing and that hate is bad only when its flowing from an evil heart. I think righteous hearts hate rightly, and although that means that everyone thinks they're right, thus everyone thinks they have a right to their hate, right or wrong, which means event he 9/11 hijackers probably thought good of themselves. I don't think taking hate off the table changes that, it just pushes it underground... in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they said they didn't hate anyone. I think when you admit to hating you have to take responsibility for it and ask yourself why you hate something and then maybe you can make some progress if you're honest with yourself about it. I also think hate, and how you respond to it are different things. I hate people but I also believe in tolerance for example. People have a right to live, but we also have laws. laws prevent chaos and violence, but you'll never legislate people's hearts--mine included. I feel its okay to hate but if you murder someone you will face the consequences. I don't feel like we can ever eradicate hate, but I think we can organize ourselves in such a way to minimize the damage from the dark side of humanity. I feel like everyone has to take responsibility for their own acts and emotions and at the end of the day if someone wants to hate or break the law, only God can really say whether it was objectively justified... for everyone else we live by our hearts and weigh the consequences and whatever is going to happen is going to happen. I definitely hate though. I don't think its necessarily a bad thing

I don't believe in a "god", "evil" or "righteous hearts" though. :/

It is ok to hate. It will take a toll on the mind and body though, eventually, unless it is seen it for what it really is. The root cause is not going to be the same for everyone.

[Chae]

I feel like I have a little Dreiser in me

Lmaoo, the inner ESI We need to introduce that concept to Gulenko. If we go by that logic, a Jack London hides within me. That means, I can turn into @Adam Strange. Omg.
(For real, it's more like the enneagram 1 in you, quite impressive lecture)

[Bertrand]

I don't believe in a "god", "evil" or "righteous hearts" though. :/

It is ok to hate. It will take a toll on the mind and body though, eventually, unless it is seen it for what it really is. The root cause is not going to be the same for everyone.

I don't mean this in a condescending way, but I feel bad for you if you don't believe in those things. those things are very important to me; its hard to imagine life without them

[Aylen]

I don't mean this in a condescending way, but I feel bad for you if you don't believe in those things. those things are very important to me; its hard to imagine life without them

I know this is genuine and I know why you feel bad for me. I am ok though. I have compensating beliefs.

[Bertrand]

Lmaoo, the inner ESI We need to introduce that concept to Gulenko. If we go by that logic, a Jack London hides within me. That means, I can turn into @Adam Strange. Omg.
(For real, it's more like the enneagram 1 in you, quite impressive lecture)

yes, I think it is E1 because its mostly Si if you really get down to it... its from piecing together the best of philosophies that I've encountered in the most healthy/aesthetic (Si) way I know how (Te/Fi)

like I didn't come up with any of that, I came across it at some point or another and recognized it as true for me

and I do think all IEEs have a little Jack in them its actually been pretty palpable around the IEEs i've gotten to know

[Singu]

Hate leads to suffering.

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -- Yoda

[Chae]

yes, I think it is E1 because its mostly Si if you really get down to it... its from piecing together the best of philosophies that I've encountered in the most healthy/aesthetic (Si) way I know how (Te/Fi)

like I didn't come up with any of that, I came across it at some point or another and recognized it as true for me

And ah, I do something here and there as well. Deltas often only repeat what they metabolized elsewhere, we're walking quote dictionaries. Where did you get this from?

[Chae]

Hate leads to suffering.

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -- Yoda

How is that a Yoda quote? THE GRAMMAR IS TOO PERFECT

[Bertrand]

And ah, I do something here and there as well. Deltas often only repeat what they metabolized elsewhere, we're walking quote dictionaries. Where did you get this from?

I think its mainly from Kierkegaard with a little American jurisprudence thrown in

[Bertrand]

How is that a Yoda quote? THE GRAMMAR IS TOO PERFECT

I think its Yoda quoting the Jedi Code, which was around since the inception of the order. But I also think its a pretty lame Ti way to look at things... Hate can lead to suffering, but not necessarily; it could also lead to good things, imo. Not only that but suffering is not necessarily bad

I guess that makes me a Sith, which I'm comfortable with. Although Obi Wan is without a doubt the best 1w9 ever

[Chae]

I think its Yoda quoting the Jedi Code, which was around since the inception of the order. But I also think its a pretty lame Ti way to look at things... Hate can lead to suffering, but not necessarily, it could also lead to good things, imo. Not only that but suffering is not necessarily bad

I was joking. Hm... yes you're right. For instance, have hate turn someone to avoid what hurts him, saving himself. Suffering was Buddha's fricking drug to enlightemnent Or I don't know what else he was on, you'll never know.

 

EDIT: Ya got some Star Wars knowledge skills

[Bertrand]

I was joking. Hm... yes you're right. For instance, have hate turn someone to avoid what hurts him, saving himself. Suffering was Buddha's fricking drug to enlightemnent Or I don't know what else he was on, you'll never know.

 

EDIT: Ya got some Star Wars knowledge skills

not gonna lie, I really like star wars

[Chae]

not gonna lie, I really like star wars

Not gonna lie, Star Wars IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SCI FI EPOS EVERRR... except when you count in Star Trek, in that case it gets difficult.

(more derail )

[Singu]

Suffering was Buddha's fricking drug to enlightemnent Or I don't know what else he was on, you'll never know.

Nah, Buddha was just trying to get away from suffering... but I think the Yoda thing is just something they took from Buddhism.

[Bertrand]

Nah, Buddha was just trying to get away from suffering... but I think the Yoda thing is just something they took from Buddhism.

in trying to get away from it he climbed it like a ladder to enlightenment which I think was Chae's point. I'm sure he saw the value in it. without suffering there'd be no enlightenment