If the fate of ‘truth’ is to be rejected, then this ‘understanding’ must be released, he realizes, in select doses, and in the right sequence. Each portion, fated to be rejected by the majority in its own turn, inevitably shapes society—the group becomes different from what it was before the ‘truth’ was shared. Nobody goes to SLI for understanding, get a clue.
Yeah OK, or you could develop your mastery and command over Socionics so that you actually solve the problems set out before you. Wisdom accomplishes what empathy can only dream of.Originally Posted by Keranos
I mean, I think the word is overused by people trying to sound badass but if you take sociopathy as having a differing sense of right and wrong from that of society then yeah definitely, big sociopath here
Wow, OK, but, there's still hope, so don't worry too much.
@Bertrand, a sociopath I know (not certain, I'm not a psychologist) despite failures and mistakes in life, culminating in attempted suicide, now lives a 'normal' enough life, working in security, learning usual morals and behaviour. Typed by me as SLE, but issues happen across all types.
my point is the accusation is meaningless and by no means a destiny, so don't worry about me
@Bertrand, as you said, we're all trying to peel the onion
so, I'll believe you at face value.
Perhaps consider extending the same courtesy to others. Peace.
In psychiatry sociopathy means high egocentrism, the lack of empathy and respect to interests of other people, what also may match with: lieing, irresponsibility, impulsivity, sometimes emotional and cognitive issues, crimes, some abnormal behavior. It has different degrees. Some sociopaths may to give pleasant impression when they want, have high level of self-control to behave good, but internally they tend to be anti-humanistic - are indifferent to other people or hate them, misanthropes. Often they seek to get the power (incl. material resources) above people, because of thinking this gives them more personal freedom - to act outside of common social norms and lesser need to take into account the needs of other people. Satanism is religious form of this pathology. Political form is liberalism, as it's based on individualism in essence, and close to this nazism or other format when the minority sets own vital interests above the majority.
It's like this:
Toxic people such as malignant narcissists, psychopaths and those with antisocial traits engage in maladaptive behaviors in relationships that ultimately exploit, demean and hurt their intimate partners, family members and friends. They use a plethora of diversionary tactics that distort the reality of their victims and deflect responsibility. Although those who are not narcissistic can employ these tactics as well, abusive narcissists use these to an excessive extent in an effort to escape accountability for their actions.
Here are the 20 diversionary tactics toxic people use to silence and degrade you.
1. Gaslighting.
Gaslighting is a manipulative tactic that can be described in different variations of three words: “That didn’t happen,” “You imagined it,” and “Are you crazy?” Gaslighting is perhaps one of the most insidious manipulative tactics out there because it works to distort and erode your sense of reality; it eats away at your ability to trust yourself and inevitably disables you from feeling justified in calling out abuse and mistreatment.
When a narcissist, sociopath or psychopath gaslights you, you may be prone to gaslighting yourself as a way to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that might arise. Two conflicting beliefs battle it out: is this person right or can I trust what I experienced? A manipulative person will convince you that the former is an inevitable truth while the latter is a sign of dysfunction on your end.
In order to resist gaslighting, it’s important to ground yourself in your own reality – sometimes writing things down as they happened, telling a friend or reiterating your experience to a support network can help to counteract the gaslighting effect. The power of having a validating community is that it can redirect you from the distorted reality of a malignant person and back to your own inner guidance.
2. Projection.
One sure sign of toxicity is when a person is chronically unwilling to see his or her own shortcomings and uses everything in their power to avoid being held accountable for them. This is known as projection. Projection is a defense mechanism used to displace responsibility of one’s negative behavior and traits by attributing them to someone else. It ultimately acts as a digression that avoids ownership and accountability.
While we all engage in projection to some extent, according to Narcissistic Personality clinical expert Dr. Martinez-Lewi, the projections of a narcissist are often psychologically abusive. Rather than acknowledge their own flaws, imperfections and wrongdoings, malignant narcissists and sociopaths opt to dump their own traits on their unsuspecting suspects in a way that is painful and excessively cruel. Instead of admitting that self-improvement may be in order, they would prefer that their victims take responsibility for their behavior and feel ashamed of themselves. This is a way for a narcissist to project any toxic shame they have about themselves onto another.
For example, a person who engages in pathological lying may accuse their partner of fibbing; a needy spouse may call their husband “clingy” in an attempt to depict them as the one who is dependent; a rude employee may call their boss ineffective in an effort to escape the truth about their own productivity.
Narcissistic abusers love to play the “blameshifting game.” Objectives of the game: they win, you lose, and you or the world at large is blamed for everything that’s wrong with them. This way, you get to babysit their fragile ego while you’re thrust into a sea of self-doubt. Fun, right?
Solution? Don’t “project” your own sense of compassion or empathy onto a toxic person and don’t own any of the toxic person’s projections either. As manipulation expert and author Dr. George Simon (2010) notes in his book In Sheep’s Clothing, projecting our own conscience and value system onto others has the potential consequence of being met with further exploitation.
Narcissists on the extreme end of the spectrum usually have no interest in self-insight or change. It’s important to cut ties and end interactions with toxic people as soon as possible so you can get centered in your own reality and validate your own identity. You don’t have to live in someone else’s cesspool of dysfunction.
3. Nonsensical conversations from hell.
If you think you’re going to have a thoughtful discussion with someone who is toxic, be prepared for epic mindfuckery rather than conversational mindfulness.
Malignant narcissists and sociopaths use word salad, circular conversations, ad hominem arguments, projection and gaslighting to disorient you and get you off track should you ever disagree with them or challenge them in any way. They do this in order to discredit, confuse and frustrate you, distract you from the main problem and make you feel guilty for being a human being with actual thoughts and feelings that might differ from their own. In their eyes, you are the problem if you happen to exist.
Spend even ten minutes arguing with a toxic narcissist and you’ll find yourself wondering how the argument even began at all. You simply disagreed with them about their absurd claim that the sky is red and now your entire childhood, family, friends, career and lifestyle choices have come under attack. That is because your disagreement picked at their false belief that they are omnipotent and omniscient, resulting in a narcissistic injury.
Remember: toxic people don’t argue with you, they essentially argue with themselves and you become privy to their long, draining monologues. They thrive off the drama and they live for it. Each and every time you attempt to provide a point that counters their ridiculous assertions, you feed them supply. Don’t feed the narcissists supply – rather, supply yourself with the confirmation that their abusive behavior is the problem, not you. Cut the interaction short as soon as you anticipate it escalating and use your energy on some decadent self-care instead.
4. Blanket statements and generalizations.
Malignant narcissists aren’t always intellectual masterminds – many of them are intellectually lazy. Rather than taking the time to carefully consider a different perspective, they generalize anything and everything you say, making blanket statements that don’t acknowledge the nuances in your argument or take into account the multiple perspectives you’ve paid homage to. Better yet, why not put a label on you that dismisses your perspective altogether?
On a larger scale, generalizations and blanket statements invalidate experiences that don’t fit in the unsupported assumptions, schemas and stereotypes of society; they are also used to maintain the status quo. This form of digression exaggerates one perspective to the point where a social justice issue can become completely obscured. For example, rape accusations against well-liked figures are often met with the reminder that there are false reports of rape that occur. While those do occur, they are rare, and in this case, the actions of one become labeled the behavior of the majority while the specific report itself remains unaddressed.
These everyday microaggressions also happen in toxic relationships. If you bring up to a narcissistic abuser that their behavior is unacceptable for example, they will often make blanket generalizations about your hypersensitivity or make a generalization such as, “You are never satisfied,” or “You’re always too sensitive” rather than addressing the real issues at hand. It’s possible that you are oversensitive at times, but it is also possible that the abuser is also insensitive and cruel the majority of the time.
Hold onto your truth and resist generalizing statements by realizing that they are in fact forms of black and white illogical thinking. Toxic people wielding blanket statements do not represent the full richness of experience – they represent the limited one of their singular experience and overinflated sense of self.
5. Deliberately misrepresenting your thoughts and feelings to the point of absurdity.
In the hands of a malignant narcissist or sociopath, your differing opinions, legitimate emotions and lived experiences get translated into character flaws and evidence of your irrationality.
Narcissists weave tall tales to reframe what you’re actually saying as a way to make your opinions look absurd or heinous. Let’s say you bring up the fact that you’re unhappy with the way a toxic friend is speaking to you. In response, he or she may put words in your mouth, saying, “Oh, so now you’re perfect?” or “So I am a bad person, huh?” when you’ve done nothing but express your feelings. This enables them to invalidate your right to have thoughts and emotions about their inappropriate behavior and instills in you a sense of guilt when you attempt to establish boundaries.
This is also a popular form of diversion and cognitive distortion that is known as “mind reading.” Toxic people often presume they know what you’re thinking and feeling. They chronically jump to conclusions based on their own triggers rather than stepping back to evaluate the situation mindfully. They act accordingly based on their own delusions and fallacies and make no apologies for the harm they cause as a result. Notorious for putting words in your mouth, they depict you as having an intention or outlandish viewpoint you didn’t possess. They accuse you of thinking of them as toxic – even before you’ve gotten the chance to call them out on their behavior – and this also serves as a form of preemptive defense.
Simply stating, “I never said that,” and walking away should the person continue to accuse you of doing or saying something you didn’t can help to set a firm boundary in this type of interaction. So long as the toxic person can blameshift and digress from their own behavior, they have succeeded in convincing you that you should be “shamed” for giving them any sort of realistic feedback.
6. Nitpicking and moving the goal posts.
The difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism is the presence of a personal attack and impossible standards. These so-called “critics” often don’t want to help you improve, they just want to nitpick, pull you down and scapegoat you in any way they can. Abusive narcissists and sociopaths employ a logical fallacy known as “moving the goalposts” in order to ensure that they have every reason to be perpetually dissatisfied with you. This is when, even after you’ve provided all the evidence in the world to validate your argument or taken an action to meet their request, they set up another expectation of you or demand more proof.
Do you have a successful career? The narcissist will then start to pick on why you aren’t a multi-millionaire yet. Did you already fulfill their need to be excessively catered to? Now it’s time to prove that you can also remain “independent.” The goal posts will perpetually change and may not even be related to each other; they don’t have any other point besides making you vie for the narcissist’s approval and validation.
By raising the expectations higher and higher each time or switching them completely, highly manipulative and toxic people are able to instill in you a pervasive sense of unworthiness and of never feeling quite “enough.” By pointing out one irrelevant fact or one thing you did wrong and developing a hyperfocus on it, narcissists get to divert from your strengths and pull you into obsessing over any flaws or weaknesses instead. They get you thinking about the next expectation of theirs you’re going to have to meet – until eventually you’ve bent over backwards trying to fulfill their every need – only to realize it didn’t change the horrific way they treated you.
Don’t get sucked into nitpicking and changing goal posts – if someone chooses to rehash an irrelevant point over and over again to the point where they aren’t acknowledging the work you’ve done to validate your point or satisfy them, their motive isn’t to better understand. It’s to further provoke you into feeling as if you have to constantly prove yourself. Validate and approve of yourself. Know that you are enough and you don’t have to be made to feel constantly deficient or unworthy in some way.
7. Changing the subject to evade accountability.
This type of tactic is what I like to call the “What about me?” syndrome. It is a literal digression from the actual topic that works to redirect attention to a different issue altogether. Narcissists don’t want you to be on the topic of holding them accountable for anything, so they will reroute discussions to benefit them. Complaining about their neglectful parenting? They’ll point out a mistake you committed seven years ago. This type of diversion has no limits in terms of time or subject content, and often begins with a sentence like “What about the time when…”
On a macrolevel, these diversions work to derail discussions that challenge the status quo. A discussion about gay rights, for example, may be derailed quickly by someone who brings in another social justice issue just to distract people from the main argument.
As Tara Moss, author of Speaking Out: A 21st Century Handbook for Women and Girls, notes, specificity is needed in order to resolve and address issues appropriately – that doesn’t mean that the issues that are being brought up don’t matter, it just means that the specific time and place may not be the best context to discuss them.
Don’t be derailed – if someone pulls a switcheroo on you, you can exercise what I call the “broken record” method and continue stating the facts without giving in to their distractions. Redirect their redirection by saying, “That’s not what I am talking about. Let’s stay focused on the real issue.” If they’re not interested, disengage and spend your energy on something more constructive – like not having a debate with someone who has the mental age of a toddler.
8. Covert and overt threats.
Narcissistic abusers and otherwise toxic people feel very threatened when their excessive sense of entitlement, false sense of superiority and grandiose sense of self are challenged in any way. They are prone to making unreasonable demands on others – while punishing you for not living up to their impossible to reach expectations.
Rather than tackle disagreements or compromises maturely, they set out to divert you from your right to have your own identity and perspective by attempting to instill fear in you about the consequences of disagreeing or complying with their demands. To them, any challenge results in an ultimatum and “do this or I’ll do that” becomes their daily mantra.
If someone’s reaction to you setting boundaries or having a differing opinion from your own is to threaten you into submission, whether it’s a thinly veiled threat or an overt admission of what they plan to do, this is a red flag of someone who has a high degree of entitlement and has no plans of compromising. Take threats seriously and show the narcissist you mean business; document threats and report them whenever possible and legally feasible.
9. Name-calling.
Narcissists preemptively blow anything they perceive as a threat to their superiority out of proportion. In their world, only they can ever be right and anyone who dares to say otherwise creates a narcissistic injury that results in narcissistic rage. As Mark Goulston, M.D. asserts, narcissistic rage does not result from low self-esteem but rather a high sense of entitlement and false sense of superiority.
The lowest of the low resort to narcissistic rage in the form of name-calling when they can’t think of a better way to manipulate your opinion or micromanage your emotions. Name-calling is a quick and easy way to put you down, degrade you and insult your intelligence, appearance or behavior while invalidating your right to be a separate person with a right to his or her perspective.
Name-calling can also be used to criticize your beliefs, opinions and insights. A well-researched perspective or informed opinion suddenly becomes “silly” or “idiotic” in the hands of a malignant narcissist or sociopath who feels threatened by it and cannot make a respectful, convincing rebuttal. Rather than target your argument, they target you as a person and seek to undermine your credibility and intelligence in any way they possibly can. It’s important to end any interaction that consists of name-calling and communicate that you won’t tolerate it. Don’t internalize it: realize that they are resorting to name-calling because they are deficient in higher level methods.
https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-a...o-silence-you/
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Praise slave morality and the desire to be a victim. Everyone who disagrees with us is obviously doing it because they're just a little baby who doesn't understand the value of having a victim mentality and retreating to a forum to complain about how the world must be so awful because they're too weak to participate. Taste the sour grapes with us and stay with us forever. Amen.
Victim mentality is an interesting subject which I have recently mentioned elsewhere. I think what was brought up about "caregiver" in socionics also applies to the term "victim". It is something I rather not associate with myself. I think seeing yourself as the victim all the time and being a victim are two different things that can overlap. Sometimes victim mentality is a result of abuse and leads to fear. In some people it has nothing to do with actual abuse of any sort. I feel people who have a history of abuse can get therapy and shift their mindset. I am not sure what would help someone who just has that worldview for other reasons. I can't relate to it. I decided I am not a victim in my childhood and held that belief even when others tried to convince me I was. It probably saved my sanity.
Maybe it is time to rename "romance styles".
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
its funny cause this entire thread was segmented in such a way to portray me as the aggressor, when if you check the times and see the flow of the old thread you see how Aylen came out of left field and started this entire discussion. it reminds me of the ESE/LIIs in law school who will frequently sever time at odd points to create this exact perception when justifying legal conclusions, without regard for how doing so sets a policy as to the legitimacy of doing things that way again going forward (stare decisis) and don't see how such an approach is chaos because its fundamentally arbitrary and can't be extended into a consistent policy. its essentially the means by which LII explains to ESE that they acted reasonably, but its predicated on Ni-devaluing. from the context of ESE who literally cannot understand time, it is reasonable to try and understand their actions in this way, because there is no evil mind, rather it is an ignorant mind. if you grant them ignorance of time as something beyond their control their actions do indeed make a lot of sense, however if you don't coral them with hard Ti constructions and limits they just run wild. Aylen would characterize my characterization as baseless precisely because she lives in some kind of omni-present such that her intervention in the old thread, the derail, and slicing up the new thread in this exact way was %100 contiguous and reasonable, perhaps even going so far as to credit her "superior intuition of time" not seeing that the whole thing was a conspicuous lack of timing and a preference for spatial dominance (right down to making a "derail thread" to begin with). the point is, I only care inasmuch as it seems like a good way to illustrate certain concepts for the rest of us, not that I ever expect Aylen to change or to even understand or to even "defend" myself. I accept that inasmuch as ESE is justified by a blind eye to time, it requires Ni be misunderstood, so there is a wonderful appropriateness to this all
this is what victim truly is, by the way.. not "playing the victim" like you see cuvininy do and so forth, but actual willingness to be the victim and be fine with it, not trying to cash in on the appearance of it, but understanding the necessity and the reality of it
Exhibit A
3. Nonsensical conversations from hell.
If you think you’re going to have a thoughtful discussion with someone who is toxic, be prepared for epic mindfuckery rather than conversational mindfulness.
Malignant narcissists and sociopaths use word salad, circular conversations, ad hominem arguments, projection and gaslighting to disorient you and get you off track should you ever disagree with them or challenge them in any way. They do this in order to discredit, confuse and frustrate you, distract you from the main problem and make you feel guilty for being a human being with actual thoughts and feelings that might differ from their own. In their eyes, you are the problem if you happen to exist.
Spend even ten minutes arguing with a toxic narcissist and you’ll find yourself wondering how the argument even began at all. You simply disagreed with them about their absurd claim that the sky is red and now your entire childhood, family, friends, career and lifestyle choices have come under attack. That is because your disagreement picked at their false belief that they are omnipotent and omniscient, resulting in a narcissistic injury.
Remember: toxic people don’t argue with you, they essentially argue with themselves and you become privy to their long, draining monologues. They thrive off the drama and they live for it. Each and every time you attempt to provide a point that counters their ridiculous assertions, you feed them supply. Don’t feed the narcissists supply – rather, supply yourself with the confirmation that their abusive behavior is the problem, not you. Cut the interaction short as soon as you anticipate it escalating and use your energy on some decadent self-care instead.
4. Blanket statements and generalizations.
Malignant narcissists aren’t always intellectual masterminds – many of them are intellectually lazy. Rather than taking the time to carefully consider a different perspective, they generalize anything and everything you say, making blanket statements that don’t acknowledge the nuances in your argument or take into account the multiple perspectives you’ve paid homage to. Better yet, why not put a label on you that dismisses your perspective altogether?
On a larger scale, generalizations and blanket statements invalidate experiences that don’t fit in the unsupported assumptions, schemas and stereotypes of society; they are also used to maintain the status quo. This form of digression exaggerates one perspective to the point where a social justice issue can become completely obscured. For example, rape accusations against well-liked figures are often met with the reminder that there are false reports of rape that occur. While those do occur, they are rare, and in this case, the actions of one become labeled the behavior of the majority while the specific report itself remains unaddressed.
These everyday microaggressions also happen in toxic relationships. If you bring up to a narcissistic abuser that their behavior is unacceptable for example, they will often make blanket generalizations about your hypersensitivity or make a generalization such as, “You are never satisfied,” or “You’re always too sensitive” rather than addressing the real issues at hand. It’s possible that you are oversensitive at times, but it is also possible that the abuser is also insensitive and cruel the majority of the time.
Hold onto your truth and resist generalizing statements by realizing that they are in fact forms of black and white illogical thinking. Toxic people wielding blanket statements do not represent the full richness of experience – they represent the limited one of their singular experience and overinflated sense of self.
5. Deliberately misrepresenting your thoughts and feelings to the point of absurdity.
In the hands of a malignant narcissist or sociopath, your differing opinions, legitimate emotions and lived experiences get translated into character flaws and evidence of your irrationality.
Narcissists weave tall tales to reframe what you’re actually saying as a way to make your opinions look absurd or heinous. Let’s say you bring up the fact that you’re unhappy with the way a toxic friend is speaking to you. In response, he or she may put words in your mouth, saying, “Oh, so now you’re perfect?” or “So I am a bad person, huh?” when you’ve done nothing but express your feelings. This enables them to invalidate your right to have thoughts and emotions about their inappropriate behavior and instills in you a sense of guilt when you attempt to establish boundaries.
This is also a popular form of diversion and cognitive distortion that is known as “mind reading.” Toxic people often presume they know what you’re thinking and feeling. They chronically jump to conclusions based on their own triggers rather than stepping back to evaluate the situation mindfully. They act accordingly based on their own delusions and fallacies and make no apologies for the harm they cause as a result. Notorious for putting words in your mouth, they depict you as having an intention or outlandish viewpoint you didn’t possess. They accuse you of thinking of them as toxic – even before you’ve gotten the chance to call them out on their behavior – and this also serves as a form of preemptive defense.
Simply stating, “I never said that,” and walking away should the person continue to accuse you of doing or saying something you didn’t can help to set a firm boundary in this type of interaction. So long as the toxic person can blameshift and digress from their own behavior, they have succeeded in convincing you that you should be “shamed” for giving them any sort of realistic feedback.
6. Nitpicking and moving the goal posts.
The difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism is the presence of a personal attack and impossible standards. These so-called “critics” often don’t want to help you improve, they just want to nitpick, pull you down and scapegoat you in any way they can. Abusive narcissists and sociopaths employ a logical fallacy known as “moving the goalposts” in order to ensure that they have every reason to be perpetually dissatisfied with you. This is when, even after you’ve provided all the evidence in the world to validate your argument or taken an action to meet their request, they set up another expectation of you or demand more proof.
Do you have a successful career? The narcissist will then start to pick on why you aren’t a multi-millionaire yet. Did you already fulfill their need to be excessively catered to? Now it’s time to prove that you can also remain “independent.” The goal posts will perpetually change and may not even be related to each other; they don’t have any other point besides making you vie for the narcissist’s approval and validation.
By raising the expectations higher and higher each time or switching them completely, highly manipulative and toxic people are able to instill in you a pervasive sense of unworthiness and of never feeling quite “enough.” By pointing out one irrelevant fact or one thing you did wrong and developing a hyperfocus on it, narcissists get to divert from your strengths and pull you into obsessing over any flaws or weaknesses instead. They get you thinking about the next expectation of theirs you’re going to have to meet – until eventually you’ve bent over backwards trying to fulfill their every need – only to realize it didn’t change the horrific way they treated you.
Don’t get sucked into nitpicking and changing goal posts – if someone chooses to rehash an irrelevant point over and over again to the point where they aren’t acknowledging the work you’ve done to validate your point or satisfy them, their motive isn’t to better understand. It’s to further provoke you into feeling as if you have to constantly prove yourself. Validate and approve of yourself. Know that you are enough and you don’t have to be made to feel constantly deficient or unworthy in some way.
7. Changing the subject to evade accountability.
This type of tactic is what I like to call the “What about me?” syndrome. It is a literal digression from the actual topic that works to redirect attention to a different issue altogether. Narcissists don’t want you to be on the topic of holding them accountable for anything, so they will reroute discussions to benefit them. Complaining about their neglectful parenting? They’ll point out a mistake you committed seven years ago. This type of diversion has no limits in terms of time or subject content, and often begins with a sentence like “What about the time when…”
On a macrolevel, these diversions work to derail discussions that challenge the status quo. A discussion about gay rights, for example, may be derailed quickly by someone who brings in another social justice issue just to distract people from the main argument.
As Tara Moss, author of Speaking Out: A 21st Century Handbook for Women and Girls, notes, specificity is needed in order to resolve and address issues appropriately – that doesn’t mean that the issues that are being brought up don’t matter, it just means that the specific time and place may not be the best context to discuss them.
Don’t be derailed – if someone pulls a switcheroo on you, you can exercise what I call the “broken record” method and continue stating the facts without giving in to their distractions. Redirect their redirection by saying, “That’s not what I am talking about. Let’s stay focused on the real issue.” If they’re not interested, disengage and spend your energy on something more constructive – like not having a debate with someone who has the mental age of a toddler.
8. Covert and overt threats.
Narcissistic abusers and otherwise toxic people feel very threatened when their excessive sense of entitlement, false sense of superiority and grandiose sense of self are challenged in any way. They are prone to making unreasonable demands on others – while punishing you for not living up to their impossible to reach expectations.
Rather than tackle disagreements or compromises maturely, they set out to divert you from your right to have your own identity and perspective by attempting to instill fear in you about the consequences of disagreeing or complying with their demands. To them, any challenge results in an ultimatum and “do this or I’ll do that” becomes their daily mantra.
If someone’s reaction to you setting boundaries or having a differing opinion from your own is to threaten you into submission, whether it’s a thinly veiled threat or an overt admission of what they plan to do, this is a red flag of someone who has a high degree of entitlement and has no plans of compromising. Take threats seriously and show the narcissist you mean business; document threats and report them whenever possible and legally feasible.
9. Name-calling.
Narcissists preemptively blow anything they perceive as a threat to their superiority out of proportion. In their world, only they can ever be right and anyone who dares to say otherwise creates a narcissistic injury that results in narcissistic rage. As Mark Goulston, M.D. asserts, narcissistic rage does not result from low self-esteem but rather a high sense of entitlement and false sense of superiority.
The lowest of the low resort to narcissistic rage in the form of name-calling when they can’t think of a better way to manipulate your opinion or micromanage your emotions. Name-calling is a quick and easy way to put you down, degrade you and insult your intelligence, appearance or behavior while invalidating your right to be a separate person with a right to his or her perspective.
Name-calling can also be used to criticize your beliefs, opinions and insights. A well-researched perspective or informed opinion suddenly becomes “silly” or “idiotic” in the hands of a malignant narcissist or sociopath who feels threatened by it and cannot make a respectful, convincing rebuttal. Rather than target your argument, they target you as a person and seek to undermine your credibility and intelligence in any way they possibly can. It’s important to end any interaction that consists of name-calling and communicate that you won’t tolerate it. Don’t internalize it: realize that they are resorting to name-calling because they are deficient in higher level methods.
I made a comment in the other thread. Anyone can click the link and see it.
Edit: I saw you trying to mindfuck another forum member and it was annoying.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
WooAPPROVEEEYYY! Agh help me to find where I wrote some new suggestions down, I've done that somewhere already. If not we can stick with "challenger"-"champion" that Gulenko has also indirectly suggested which sounds good on both sides and doesn't disempower them like "victim" does for no reason.
I don't think victim is disempowering. they can rename it if they want, but the main problem, and I think Gulenko would agree, is not that it fails to capture things its that people have a hard time understanding it and recognizing it, but I believe thats fundamentally linked to the strangeness of Ni itself, and not something in the word. If they rename it people are just going to misunderstand challenger-champion in a similar way
WooChallengers/Trophies: EIE (ENFj) IEI (INFp)
These are the types who unconsciously throw a "gauntlet" down for their opponents. They know on an almost subliminal level exactly who they are looking for, and anyone who does not fit the bill will be subjected to a rather flakey, hot-cold game of courting tag. As a result, they may appear (both to others and to themselves) rather amorphous and can take on qualities of the other romantic attitudes, depending on the situation and who they are "challenging."
They may, for example, give the victim half his aggressor, the psuedo-aggressor a little victim, the caregiver a bit of his child, etc. They react best, however, to those who do not "break" as a result of their games, but grant them a level of autonomy. Healthy examples of this type will have a sense of self-esteem, and may think of themselves as the "prize" that will be given only to the rightful owner.
Edit: Don't want to leave out the other "victim" types.
Psuedo-Aggressors/Employees: LIE (ENTj) ILI (INTp)
These are types who exhibit aggressive tendencies in their everyday life, and as a result tend to carry over these notions and temperaments into their romantic life. They typically are not comfortable with connotations of the word "victim" - implying a certain weakness, effeteness, and lack of dignity. In searching for a partner, they are looking for a worthy opponent - someone who is strong enough to withstand their quirks without "breaking" so to speak.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
the ignoring function does a good job of apologizing for the dual's inability to maintain a normative standard on their polr
you see both chae and gulenko helping ESE out here, but to what end? perhaps the idea is the subconscious expectation of sensory support in return? as the socion turns...
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
This is your style. I love seeing you type me ESE for this reason. You are showing a complete lack of understanding of types. You have alpha and gamma quadras backwards btw. You confuse SEE for ESE and vice versa. I am neither of those types. You only use the idea of ESE to demean people. You have never used it in proper context, that I have seen, only as a insult. I am sorry you feel victim to me. I mean this. It is not healthy. Stop giving me so much influence over you. I don't want it.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Of course you can.
Unless the cake is a lie.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Not really. Once you eat your cake, you don't have it anymore. You can't make Ni into both Ni and Se. Even if you want to change it into Challenger-Champion because you think that's a better translation for the Russian meaning of Victim, the challenger is still a perpetual challenger that never wins. Socionıcs is exclusive in the same way as having and eating cake. That's why it's called The Duality of Man and not The Sufficiency of Man.Of course you can.
Unless the cake is a lie.
do I feel victim to you? in what sense?
I'm not obsessed with you, you created this thread and sustained it with your constant contribution. I'm simply redeeming your confusion with clarifying remarks, in that sense I don't see it as a negative thing at all nor do I think of ESE as demeaning, I think you play a valuable role in all of this because the more you're yourself the more the truth reveals itself. the worst thing would actually for there to be inactivity on this front, because it would allow you to hide behind an image you can't support as soon as you try to defend it. in this way ESE is the motor for a lot of useful examples of explanations being developed. cuvininy acts out the same principle and it is glorious
Ok, in the sense that you can eat the cake and it becomes a part of you. You still have it and it has been incorporated as fuel. I always found that saying kind of weird.
I didn't change it. Gulenko did. Just because I find it undignified and misleading doesn't mean I need it changed to suit me. I just think some are so put off by it that they would not even consider the type. Wasn't that one of your issues with it and why you didn't even want to consider IEI for yourself?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Stop lying. You use ESE to demean people and you have said repeatedly ESE = stupid in your mind. Not letting you get away with this.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I don't consider fat to be cake. If I get a birthday cake and you eat the whole thing while I'm gone, then I come back and ask "do you have my cake for me?" I'm not asking to cut you up and eat your fat. That's not very appealing anyways.
All Ni types are Victims. In Russian socionıcs IEI is beyond that. IEI does nothing but daydream and need a perfect hero (SLE) to save them. They are nothing so that SLE can be everything. This is Russian Socionıcs 101. Conflating it with Jung and MBTI is how people try to have their cake and eat it too.
its pretty obvious gulenko is acting to clarify a concept but not addressing the underlying issue, which is to say, precisely as Wyrd pointed out, that if you reshuffle things in this way you're making it easier not harder to collapse Ni/Se in the exact way that is confused by Aylen here (and was the same exact problem with "victim"), hence his attempt to straighten her out is sort of futile by these means (renaming), thus Chae and Gulenko's good will in this respect is naive... because they don't want to understand. my entire point here is there's a willful move being done here by Aylen and people like her within socionics which is essentially alpha socials filling out the socion as a form of LARPing
Yeah, ok, that is kind of gross to think of and my mind didn't go there.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I should compile a FAQ consisting of your most warped statements and sticky them in both alpha and gamma. lol
Go back to sucking up to hatchback. I see you. Seems he is not falling for it.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
yeah that would really bring the real alphas and the fake alphas together I bet
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
If you hurry it might not yet be decomposed
The principle difference lies in that caregivers are active, while victims are passive. What is not correct to think someone of them suffers from such states.
> It is something I rather not associate with myself.
Ni types like being controlled and inspired by external Se, as they feel the lack of own will in themselves. As this relates mostly to unconscious, so people may don't notice this well.
Like T types generally underestimate the need of relations, emotions of other people to them and the importance of emotions of near people, - they just feel badly like without reasons, and accidently (for them) become happier when get the mentioned.
> Maybe it is time to rename "romance styles"
sure. Si valued and Se valued "romance styles": active and passive.but this is longer
The more important would be the renaming of intertype relations to neutral notations (like is "ILE" instead of schiz "Don Quixote"). As it's core theory.
sometime I have the impression he just trolls you by calling as ESE
(your possible quasi-identity may express in thinking bad about mental abbilities of each other)
I have no issue with active/passive of romance style. I am passive in that area in ways I won't go into. I have never even tried to "date". I just fall into a relationship usually after someone is persistent enough.The principle difference lies in that caregivers are active, while victims are passive. What is not correct to think someone of them suffers from such states.
> It is something I rather not associate with myself.
Ni types like being controlled and inspired by external Se, as they feel the lack of own will in themselves. As this relates mostly to unconscious, so people may don't notice this well.
Like T types generally underestimate the need of relations, emotions of other people to them and the importance of emotions of near people, - they just feel badly like without reasons, and accidently (for them) become happier when get the mentioned.
> Maybe it is time to rename "romance styles"
sure. Si valued and Se valued "romance styles": active and passive.
The more important would be the renaming of intertype relations to neutral notations (like is "ILE" instead of schiz "Don Quixote"). As it's core theory.
sometime I have the impression he just trolls you by calling as ESE
(your possible quasi-identity may express in thinking bad about mental abbilities of each other)
It is not so strange that I care since I am kind of wearing two hats on this forum now and I wasn't before. I need to be objective while wearing one and am free to be subjective wearing the other. I am not going to go into how I found out about him trying to undermine me with that typing because it is not important. It just showed me it is not just about trolling me. It is about demeaning and invalidating anything I might have to say about Ni and/or socionics in general because he will just use "ESE" to insult my intelligence and shift focus off what I am saying.
I do not like to see people deliberately spread misinformation. I do not care what he says to me since I am secure in my self typing. I do take offense on behalf of my sister because he is misrepresenting a whole type that he most likely knows rarely shows up on this forum and when they do probably do not take the time to read through the garbled nonsense so there is no one to dispute it. We will talk about the SEI typing of her later since it is not relevant at the moment.
It is my "job" to address concerns of other forum members though which he will reframe as caregiving.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
So instead of reasonable arguing he trolls you and that works!
> I do not like to see people deliberately spread misinformation.
Ignore this.
> It is my "job" to address concerns of other forum members though which he will reframe as caregiving.
Your "job" is not repetitive mess with a littlely strange dude. There are better ways to use your intelligence.
Better make a unique guessing thread.
Posting Permissions
