What are the areas in which you are rebellious, or deviant? I was thinking about how this might not only related to your __ function, but also to the __ block.
dont want to influence what's posted.
Areas where you are rebellious
What are the areas in which you are rebellious, or deviant? I was thinking about how this might not only related to your __ function, but also to the __ block.
dont want to influence what's posted.
.
i'm intellectually rebellious. i refuse to subscribe to anyone else's ideas by default.
perhaps many areas, but i will reconsider after i understand the followingOriginally Posted by Ms. Kensington
What are the areas in which you are rebellious, or deviant? I was thinking about how this might not only related to your __ function, but also to the __ block.
dont want to influence what's posted.
are you referring to outward rebellion/deviance?
whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.
Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee
I feel very similarly to Carla. I despise being forced to do something a great deal, and if you're anywhere near me when this occurs I would watch out. Normally my temper is even and steady, but for whatever reason people doing this fucking ticks me off. I need to feel as if my decision came from _me_ and me alone, and that no other person has influenced my choices, especially the important ones, in any way that resembles coercion.
Then a lot of times I just fold under coercion. I don't even know.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I'd say anytime anybody pressures me to something, or tries to scold me, or tries to tell me how to live my life. So yeah, probably in many areas.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
mhm, you worded it as I would have. But i'd say you werent rebellious here.
reyn, it can be outwardly or inwardly, but i was thinking of an area you are very active in (mentally or physically) and have a greater chance of not adhering to others' input at all, or one in which you are not receptive to others' input and might act deviantly- differently-- for whatever reason, not necessarily for the reason that someone feels scornful about the area. But, people can post about these areas too. I just hoped to not restrict responses to only the idea of rebelling against social norms or social anything. Something you treat almost flippantly (but this does not imply that you hate this area). :/
Generally I most rebellious in areas like China, Russia, Cuba, or America (when tea taxes are involved), France (when tennis courts are involved) or when any Mel Gibson movie is on.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
...
Last edited by Logos; 01-03-2008 at 08:39 AM. Reason: Damn Dirty Double-Posting
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
hahah i so want to know what this said originally
In the way Diana described 'rebellious', I'd say that I am directly deviant against the 'object' exactly in the way Jung described it. I dislike the object in that I hate general consensus, and seeing many people agree makes me sick. I guess I try to be the photonegative of the object, which I think is sort of more like an inverted form of extraversion than a form of introversion. I think that I am guided by the object. I certainly care about what others think of me more than I should, probably, and my wanting to be constantly different than others always gets my mother telling me I should just do what I want and not care about what others think. Except that concept is actually foreign to me and I do not think that way. If I find someone with the same hairstyle as I, I'd have to change it (some people are getting close to my current one, so that might happen.) But I'm content enough living this way.
Ok, maybe it's not as extreme as described...
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Paste the response in post #14 and put it in the space of #15 and you will. It was just a simple double-post.
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 could ask about your feelings on the West's cultural imposition on Islam... but I won't.
Don't you think your Cuban rebelliousness is misguided? Is Castro really what Cuba needs? You must admit, he's stymied progress by a great deal: Cuba lives in a time warp.
I rebel against how things are supposed to be. Particularly at workplaces, so it's just as well I don't work outside the home anymore. I hate "rules and regulations". I hate "standard operating procedures". The corporate headquarters of my last workplace hated me.
I also rebel against this weird thing with almost every woman I know IRL where they have to spend like $400 or more on a purse, and then they have to call it a "bag" instead of a purse. Someone even told me that the $400 Coach Bag was an "entry level bag". ROFL. Why did the word "purse" change to "bag"? And why would I spend $400 or more to carry stuff around? I just bought a new purse and it was like $60 or so, and I felt bad spending that much. It's just something to carry stuff around! It isn't like a $400 purse carries stuff better than a $50 purse. But anything like that. Like I don't wear a wedding ring - I don't even own a diamond ring. Diamonds have no value to me. But I've actually had people tell me I should wear a diamond just so people know I can afford one. I don't honestly give a rat's ass about that. Anyway, there seems to be a great emphasis in middle class America about projecting wealth, and it's kind if icky. Like you have to spend money if you want to belong to the club. My friends think I'm a hippy or something and seem to figure that exempts me from this weird rule.
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.
And so has a trade embargo by Cuba's prior largest trading partner, but who is responsible for that Castro or the US?
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 call it a pocketbook. or a bag if it looks sort of hobo-ish.
yeah things are getting totally greedy. i think the focus on shopping and clothes lately is to de-focus off of real world issues so owners of greedy corporations can do as they see fit. choice, humfph. i have a choice about whether i go to the gap or old navy wtf. and they're owned by the same company anyway.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
hmm... i think the question for me would be what do you NOT rebel against to be completely honest. The answer the that question would probably be when i absolutely have to.
ESFp-Fi sub
6w7 sx/so/sp
I very much hate the word "rebellious". It suggests that someone had power over me and I "rebelled" against it. The only person who has any power over me is me, and whatever I decide to do is my decision alone. I am not going along with someone's "authority" or rebelling against it, I'm just doing what I want to do. I don't recognize any "authority" except the ownership each person has over their own decisions and belongings. If someone owns a company and I decide to work for that person, I see that person as being my "boss", since the company is one of their possessions. The managers they hire, however, are not my "bosses". They are nothing more than people filling a specific role within that company, just like I am. I'll listen to them if doing so is what's best for the company. I will not if I do not think that doing so is what's best for the company. If my personal values or desires conflict with this, I will quit the job. This allows me to do what I want to do and allows the owner of the company to fill my position with someone better suited to it.
Anyways, my mom has said I'm rebellious many, many times. She seems to think I rebel against any and all authority. (Obviously, I find this offensive.) She has expressed the most concern over my "rebellion" against gender roles and (more so) her religious beliefs.
For the purposes of this thread, however, I'll just sum it up by saying "tradition".
You are just rebelling against being called rebellious. Accept that you are rebellious without rebelling againt it.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I like the way you explain this. It's pretty much what I was saying.
I also like that concept of what self-actualized means, though I think there's more to it than that. I'll not get into that here though.
Doing so would mean that there's something I'm "supposed to" submit to though, and I don't believe that there is. I answered for what others would probably think I am being rebellious regarding (namely, tradition), but I personally do not believe it's possible for me to be rebellious.
I don't remember the last time I paid more than $5 for a purse. When one gets worn out I usually find another one laying around the house, usually something someone gave me at one point (one of the reasons people sometimes say I carry luggage instead of a purse, I think). The last purse I bought was from Goodwill. The last purse I carried was a gift from a bank or something like that (I don't know, my boss gave it to me). The purse I carry now is probably the nicest one I've ever had.
Generally speaking, I think purses should be convenient, inexpensive (or free), and plain.
Same here. And that was funny about the bag thing too. Seriously. $400? "Entry-level?" I like to make my own purses anyway (I felt them with wool). Cheap and no one else has the same thing.
If my husband would let me, I think it would be funny to buy and drive a truck in this community where there are no trucks (we live close to the city), just because it's not expected and I feel like it. That's how I'd like to rebel. I'm also a rebel with my time. I like to be in charge of it and I don't like others telling me what I should do (volunteer here or there, join this or that group, etc.).
IEI-Fe 4w3
Oh well mine isn't plain.It has pink elephants on it. I will search for a photo
Ok this isn't the style purse but this is the fabric:
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.
Cute fabric!Oh well mine isn't plain.
Ok this isn't the style purse but this is the fabric:
IEI-Fe 4w3
Honestly, I find the question to be kind of silly. Like Joy, Diana, and Salwa, there is a sense that rebellion in the context implies a power imbalance within the relationship and that seems a bit odd to me (though it is perhaps naive to believe that power imbalances or authority does not exist within relationships). But then again, rebellion is not necessarily taken against just legitimate authority, but by its nature is when the rebellious party ceases to recognize the legitimacy of the authority, so some of what Joy, Diana, and Salwa are saying also seems to be silly in its own right. And one must wonder what one's status is in the larger relationship if they are not called to be rebellious.
But Expat does seem to have hit on what may be going on to some extent in this thread (even if it was done with tongue-in-cheek), the reluctance (or rebelling) to be labeled as rebellious. But what Ms. K seems to be getting at is at what points or instances do you have a tendency to conscientiously act against a sense of authority (legitimate or otherwise) whether that is perhaps on merely the interpersonal level or on the societal interactive level. Or to rephrase it, on what points or issues do you tend to resist the pressures being exerted on you by some other party? Reading it otherwise seems to be just splitting hairs and taking it completely out of context without any real sign of using
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
just a question..... if INTjs are universally known by socionists for their rebelliousness, how would that work with a Se POLR???
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
there's always somebody who has more power than you do, so there are always choices to either rebel or not rebel.well socionics would imply that there is a power differential in asymmetrical relationships. so in those relationships, does one tend to rebel?
But Expat does seem to have hit on what may be going on to some extent in this thread (even if it was done with tongue-in-cheek), the reluctance (or rebelling) to be labeled as rebellious. But what Ms. K seems to be getting at is at what points or instances do you have a tendency to conscientiously act against a sense of authority (legitimate or otherwise) whether that is perhaps on merely the interpersonal level or on the societal interactive level. Or to rephrase it, on what points or issues do you tend to resist the pressures being exerted on you by some other party? Reading it otherwise seems to be just splitting hairs and taking it completely out of context without any real sign of using
for myself, when young, i was extremely rebellious. i have found that this is not a good way to go. better to work with the powers that be than against them. you get a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar, as they saying goes.
i wonder though if the tendency toward rebelliousness is more type related or relation-related?
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Heh, yeah...for myself, when young, i was extremely rebellious. i have found that this is not a good way to go. better to work with the powers that be than against them. you get a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar, as they saying goes.
Seems like most people are being rebellious in that they are very wary of the object gaining control and influencing them, thus trying to preserve the subject, which is technically introversion, to put it in Jung's terms.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
The way I see it, everyone has complete authority over him/herself. If someone allows another person to have authority over them, that is still their decision.
Leadership, on the other hand, is something I believe strongly in and have great respect for. However, leadership is a position of service, not authority.
Like I said, tradition.Or to rephrase it, on what points or issues do you tend to resist the pressures being exerted on you by some other party?
By your above definition, my not seeing myself as anyone's subordinate would be "rebellious". I've had trouble with managers in the past because of this.But Expat does seem to have hit on what may be going on to some extent in this thread (even if it was done with tongue-in-cheek), the reluctance (or rebelling) to be labeled as rebellious.
However, I within an organization, such an as association, government system, corporation, etc. I am very cooperative (unless someone is unfair, does not respect the rights of others, or does not treat everyone as equals) and follow the defined chain of command and (most importantly) usually do anything I can to make the leader's job easier (I do this for coworkers too, actually).
But again, this is dependent upon how the people involved are behaving. I've been in some really nasty power struggles with coworkers and managers when they tried to assert authority where they did not have any or beyond what was necessary for the situation. I got better about it since I had my son though (not bothering with petty stuff).
Im somewhat rebellious when i see a jork doing something 'important' or 'for the future' using this for gain fame or prestige or whatever. The whole thing about the "Global warming" and Al Gore (for example) really makes me angry with people, saying harsh things even like: "how stupid you are for believe him!" or "what a bounch of bullbigshit are you talking about", but it is inconcious. I mean, i dont mean it, i said it because i react with this kind of stuff. I hate and i act rebellious against ideas of populism. This kind of things really really make my day bad.
Heh, I sympathize.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Easy, they hate using Se and are fairly poor at gaging it, but they hate when that function is exerted against them and will resist attempts to do so. As Se entails some degree of willpower assertion, an LII resisting said assertion would make the LII appear as a rebellious type.
True, but what does it mean to allow others to have authority over a person? What does that entail? Are there limits to that complete authority?
Ahhh, but one person's leader is another person's tyrant. And even positions of service may entail an implicit or explicit sense of authority.Leadership, on the other hand, is something I believe strongly in and have great respect for. However, leadership is a position of service, not authority.
I definitely agree that tradition for the sake of tradition is a silly thing to uphold, but it also seems to be childish to be rebellious against traditions if they are held in value by others who you may value.Like I said, tradition.
Well honestly, how many people do enjoy seeing themselves as someone's subordinate? Everyone deems themselves free and yet everywhere, everyone is in chains.By your above definition, my not seeing myself as anyone's subordinate would be "rebellious". I've had trouble with managers in the past because of this.
This is definitely where we differ (though I do agree with the parentheses part) in the sense that I will ignore the "chain of command" if it serves no purpose. I do not engage in power struggles; I remove myself from them. And I would ignore most of the crap that the chain in command would send my way if I did not deem that it would serve either the purpose of the student organization at large or the goals I established in relation to the subsection under my jurisdiction. So while I was a part of this particular organization and sought to advance its mission statement, I was also somewhat (and kept my "branch") independent of it. As I said earlier, passive aggressiveness.However, I within an organization, such an as association, government system, corporation, etc. I am very cooperative (unless someone is unfair, does not respect the rights of others, or does not treat everyone as equals) and follow the defined chain of command and (most importantly) usually do anything I can to make the leader's job easier (I do this for coworkers too, actually).
But again, this is dependent upon how the people involved are behaving. I've been in some really nasty power struggles with coworkers and managers when they tried to assert authority where they did not have any or beyond what was necessary for the situation. I got better about it since I had my son though (not bothering with petty stuff).
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
not really, but ok.
Authority is an illusion, imo, so it's whatever the people involved believe it is.
I suppose, but then the individual simply isn't the other person's leader.Ahhh, but one person's leader is another person's tyrant.
Depends how you define authority. If you by authority you mean that due to cause and effect relationships there is reason to do what the "authority" wants you to do, then yes, you are correct.And even positions of service may entail an implicit or explicit sense of authority.
I don't blindly reject all traditions. But I refuse to do something only because it's what's been done in the past, or only because it's what culture/society thinks I should do.I definitely agree that tradition for the sake of tradition is a silly thing to uphold, but it also seems to be childish to be rebellious against traditions if they are held in value by others who you may value.
I dunno, there probably are. I cannot fathom it, personally. But the military and corporate jobs are far too common for me to think that there's no one out there who enjoys seeing themselves as being part of a hierarchy.Well honestly, how many people do enjoy seeing themselves as someone's subordinate?
Depends how you look at it. Or rather, it depends how they look at it.Everyone deems themselves free and yet everywhere, everyone is in chains.
This is what I do now, but it's not passive aggressive. It's not aggressive at all. I don't experience many problems these days, and when I do, circumstances are generally in my favor so I don't need to do much.This is definitely where we differ (though I do agree with the parentheses part) in the sense that I will ignore the "chain of command" if it serves no purpose. I do not engage in power struggles; I remove myself from them. And I would ignore most of the crap that the chain in command would send my way if I did not deem that it would serve either the purpose of the student organization at large or the goals I established in relation to the subsection under my jurisdiction. So while I was a part of this particular organization and sought to advance its mission statement, I was also somewhat (and kept my "branch") independent of it. As I said earlier, passive aggressiveness.
If there's no one who thinks that you're "supposed to" listen to someone, how does that person have any authority over you?
That's admirable.
Wow, you are totally awesome. I hope to give something else if I ever get trapped. Maybe a sapphire? Ruby? Whatever her fav color is.
Just curious, but why do you believe that it is an illusion?
Are we talking about leadership or the 4H Club?I suppose, but then the individual simply isn't the other person's leader.
In which case, how would make that an illusion?Depends how you define authority. If you by authority you mean that due to cause and effect relationships there is reason to do what the "authority" wants you to do, then yes, you are correct.
No, Joy, subordination is a position of service and thereby must be admired.I dunno, there probably are. I cannot fathom it, personally. But the military and corporate jobs are far too common for me to think that there's no one out there who enjoys seeing themselves as being part of a hierarchy.
Again I repeat myself, "Everyone deems themselves free and yet everywhere, everyone is in chains."Depends how you look at it. Or rather, it depends how they look at it.
Well I kind of left a great deal of details out of my description and my habits so that it would have been more general.This is what I do now, but it's not passive aggressive. It's not aggressive at all. I don't experience many problems these days, and when I do, circumstances are generally in my favor so I don't need to do much.
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 think in terms of cause and effect relationships and personal freedom. If I get a speeding ticket, I'll pay it. Why? It is most certainly NOT because I see the DMV, the courts, or the police as an authority over me. It's because if I don't, the fine will increase, my license will be taken away, it may go on my credit report, it may be taken out of my tax return, and I may go to jail.
I chose to speed and I am choosing to pay or not pay the ticket based on cause and effect relationships.
Leadership is, imo, determining what the group needs to accomplish and finding the best way to accomplish it. The best way is a way which is in the best interests of everyone involved (both long term and short term) and accomplishes the objective in the most effective and efficient manner. Doing this requires the ability to incite cooperation from all parties involved. This is usually best accomplished by finding out what each person responds best to and then giving them that type of encouragement.Are we talking about leadership or the 4H Club?
An effective leader rarely needs to threaten or punish people and does not necessarily need a position of authority. If he/she is aware of the situation and in tune with the cause and effect relationships at play, he/she won't need an official position of authority because there are other ways of accomplishing something through cause and effect relationships. (The type of cause and effect relationship I described in the first paragraph of this post is certainly not the only kind.) Sometimes the dynamics of the situation may need to be altered, but that does not mean that people have to recognize that you're "in charge". (If you have to tell people that you're in charge, you're not.) In fact, the best way to lead is often by standing in the shadows of the people you're leading. Give them the credit for accomplishments whenever possible. Also, when they make a mistake, it's often best to shield them from humiliation. Take responsibility for the mistake the people you're leading have made, and offer solutions.
(Of course, there are some people that do not respond well to this, in which case you should just do whatever's fair and effective.)
This is why leadership is a service. You're working for everyone's best interests, and this often involves dealing with a lot of responsibility (like I said, when they succeed it's on them and when they fail it's on you... it's often a thankless job, if what you're looking for is recognition/praise), requires a great deal of patience and diplomacy, and many times means doing a great deal of work (this should be lessened though once things get going and you can effectively delegate tasks).
semanticsIn which case, how would make that an illusion?
Is this sarcasm?No, Joy, subordination is a position of service and thereby must be admired.
If not, see what I said above about why leadership is a service. (Providing a service is, imo, doing something for someone else, whether it's for money, for praise, because you want to, because you think you have to, etc.)
It's all a matter of perspective. One of the things I find myself thinking about a lot is the different layers of reality present in any given situation.Again I repeat myself, "Everyone deems themselves free and yet everywhere, everyone is in chains."
I was married to an LII, so I may have a vague idea of what you were talking about. He and I were similar in the ways you mentioned, but different in the reasons we did what we did and (to some extent) what we accomplished in doing it.Well I kind of left a great deal of details out of my description and my habits so that it would have been more general.
- What're you rebelling against, Johnny?
- Whaddya got?
I'm pretty much anti-everything (especially against people who label themselves deviants). I'm not even ideologically consistent about it. For example: even though I'm generally very capitalistic, at the same time I'm against commercial "artists".
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"