Optimal Identical Relations/Subjective Ordering of Intertype Relations

[FDG]

I think I'm talking too much in here lately.. like "do as I say and not as I do", I should take a rest eheh

No I think SEEs have a lot of positive trait. If you are part of their group they will protect you from outside problems like few others. But what you wrote is one of their main "bugs" in their software.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Idk, I don't know any introverts who wave it all out there. And I know a couple Fi creatives who totally do lol...

You do?

[at sirac son of sirac]

@Crystal

Morality… synonyms ethics. - m.w dictionary. Morality/Ethics is what people use to make decisions involving other humans. They are the same.

All relationships besides duality require the individuals to cope which again is a eutheism for censorship (suppression). For instance in Activity it requires the rational/irrational compromise where 1 person will have to either talk more about a subject they don’t want to talk about or vice-versa. In conflict relationship, the suppression is so severe that you can’t even tell the other party anything without it shorty devolving into an argument. It requires 1 or both parties to not talk, to censor their perception of judgement themselves to avoid an argument. This is a direct result of the intertype relationships where one persons leading function is the other person’s PoLR.

Ne focus on different possibilities leads to a questioning or critique of the accepted reality, because that is 1 reality out of many. Best example is NeTi which is a questioning of institutions and ideology such as the Church. Questioning true love is the NeFi equivalent. Ne needs to sift through these possible realities to find the 1 true reality.

Loving a child would be either a subsection of psychological love or you could make it a 3rd type of love.

P.S. You are being way too argumentative.

I have heard of pseudo aggressor.

Now I am hearing of pseudo-IEE.

[ashlesha]

You do?

[Hope]

All relationships besides duality require the individuals to cope which again is a eutheism for censorship (suppression). For instance in Activity it requires the rational/irrational compromise where 1 person will have to either talk more about a subject they don’t want to talk about or vice-versa. In conflict relationship, the suppression is so severe that you can’t even tell the other party anything without it shorty devolving into an argument. It requires 1 or both parties to not talk, to censor their perception of judgement themselves to avoid an argument. This is a direct result of the intertype relationships where one persons leading function is the other person’s PoLR.

with besides you mean except? If thats the case, its pretty unrealistic, but good luck with that.

Anyway, cope is not self suppression, the association is foreign to the words meaning:

Cope, verb: (of a person) deal effectively with something difficult.

Ne focus on different possibilities leads to a questioning or critique of the accepted reality,because that is 1 reality out of many. Best example is NeTi which is a questioning of institutions and ideology such as the Church. Questioning true love is the NeFi equivalent. Ne needs to sift through these possible realities to find the 1 true reality.

Never read about the categorical denial of sentiments like love as a trait related to Ne Fi, honestly, though, they can ramble and think about a bunch of things or controversial topics or have unusual opinions (but yours is not unusual I swear, I've heard it before).

Anyway, you were not questioning, you were stating with bunch of certainty that True love didnt exist as it was just chemicals and Disney. You are changing your argument all of a sudden.

True love isn't real. It's Disney marketing material.
There is physical attraction i.e. love at first sight which is just your body recognizing similar facial aesthetics.
There is psychological attraction i.e. Socionics.
That's it.

Also IEEs are often optimistic more than cynical, radical or close minded.

Skepticism and pessimism or cold cynism is more like Ni in ILI also than Ti Ne of LII for example:

"This type of fatalism is spurned by their ability to see the negative in anything, which has its roots in the ILI's general dislike of expressing or reinforcing positive emotions. To an ILI, it may be easier to predict pessimistic results in order to avoid an unpleasant emotional reaction. Likewise, the ILI's sense of general self doubt leads him to be very conservative in his general outlook; why unnecessarily subject oneself to the uncertainty of possible disappointment? x "

Loving a child would be either a subsection of psychological love or you could make it a 3rd type of love.

I dont have to make it, the words already exist. There are at least 7 words for different type of love designed by the greeks. Plus you were saying that love is not real beyond psychological attraction so how do you explain love for kids according that limited understanding? again, its attraction? Or is a decision parents do for their kids as a man or a woman does for loving each other?

Morality… synonyms ethics. - m.w dictionary. Morality/Ethics is what people use to make decisions involving other humans. They are the same.

Ethics and moral are commonly mistaken and used by english native speakers as if they were synonyms but they aren't. Its an extended social mistake and it just happens in english afaik, not in the rest of the languages.

Is the same with feeling and emotion. English native speakers use the words interchangeably because its easier (not necessarily true) so they don't have to make distinctions, but both have different meanings in dictionaries and they have different etymological roots.

"Ethics (ethics) and moral (morals) are related to "good" and "bad" behavior. Although sometimes used interchangeably, they are different. Ethics (ethics) refers to rules provided from an outside source, such as codes of conduct in workplaces or the Ten Commandments (religious principles), while morals (morals) refer to the individual principles that the person has about good and evil.x"

Using ethics and moral indistinctly leads to misunderstandings in socionics functions (and life in general), this case is an example:

"In example of professional ethics (confusing with morals) is the work of a defense lawyer. The morality of said lawyer may indicate that the homicide is reprehensible and that the murderers should be punished, but their ethics as a legal professional requires that they defend their client as best they can even if they know that the client is guilty. Another example comes from the medical field. In many parts of the world, a doctor can not euthanize a patient, even if the patient requests it, due to the code of medical professional ethics. However, within his moral, the doctor may believe that his patient has the right to die to avoid further suffering."


Much of the confusion between the two words can be traced back to their origins. The word "ethics" (ethics) comes from the old French (etique), from the Latin modero (ethica) and the Greek (ethos) and they all refer to moral customs or philosophies. The word "moral" (morals) comes from modern Latin (moralis), which refers to appropriate behavior and manners in society. Both words, therefore, have similar meanings, but they are not synonymous, even in their original roots."


So according that, we can say that everyone has an internal sense or code of good an evil (ethicals, logicals, sensors, intuitives). However, not everyone behave with others ethically. The sense of Fi is behaving ethically with the other person (and how the other with you), thats why its called Ethics of relations, and thats why is ethic, not moral, because its conscious of how its actions, feelings and emotions will affect and be perceived by other (in relation to), plus the nature of the function is Introverted (has not expansive energy as Fe). Fi is ethics of relations, Fe is ethics of emotions. Thats it.

Its stated in most definitions:

FI
"Introverted ethics is an introverted, rational, and static information element. It is also called Fi, R, relational ethics, or white ethics. Fi is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing. Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.

Also, these types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an extroverted ethics (Fe) approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked"). Much of their decisions are based on how they themselves, or others in relation to them personally, feel in contrast to considering how "the big picture" is affected (such as groups of people)."

FE
"Extroverted ethics is an extroverted, rational, and dynamic information element. It is also called Fe, E, the ethics of emotions, or black ethics. Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.

Types that value Fe like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. "<--- this is very similar at your own understanding in here:

Conflict relationships may have physical attraction but they will NOT have psychological attraction. In fact it will be the opposite: repulsion. "coping with each others faults," is a euphemism for censorship. Neither person has faults, rather they are perceived as faults by the other party. So each person coupes by censoring themselves, They think, "Should I tell my partner X....nah it'll start a fight." This is an example of increasing psych distance. If a couple ignores these issues and stays together that's insanity, not true love.

P.S. You are being way too argumentative.

It wasnt me who started this conversation. I already said that you can think what you please or understand love as what you like the best, but still, you keep on with the replying. So, unless you are expecting me to agree with you in every word you speak to me even if I think that what you say is incorrect, I dont see why you think me answering back is being too argumentative. Plus, I hope this conversation ending up soon, since information is out there for everyone to look at. And for future reference, I dont enjoy so much this kind of conversations. So, in regards of you and I having so different perspectives, we can save energy and time in more pleasant/productive stuff in the future.

For the rest, its not a type hunting and I'm not saying you are X or Y type, because honestly I dont care, I'm just saying your concerns and statements are plain strange for Ne Fi valuing. I'm suspecting you are probably new into socionics stuff too, so mistypes can happen.

EDIT:
I'm reading sources in english which states the opposite of my source:

"The word Morals is derived from a Greek word “Mos” which means custom. On the other hand, if we talk about Ethics, it is also derived from a Greek word “Ethikos” which means character. Put simply, morals are the customs established by group of individuals whereas ethics defines the character of an individual. x"

I dont know if the source is trustworthy. I prefer the other one because it has more support and makes more sense (as the example of field ethics vs moral shows). Anyway apart from the definitions of Ethics or moral, the fact is that both are different, and in relation to Fi Fe, definitions doesn't allow to think in Fi=moral, Fe=Ethics or the inverse. Both are ethics, the difference is the focus,Fi introverted (1x1, sentiments) or Fe, extroverted (groups +3, emotions). Just wanted to clarify to avoid further derailment in this point.

[Bertrand]

with besides you mean except? If thats the case, its pretty unrealistic, but good luck with that.

Anyway, cope is not self suppression, the association is foreign to the words meaning:

Cope, verb: (of a person) deal effectively with something difficult.



Never read about the categorical denial of sentiments like love as a trait related to Ne Fi, honestly, though, they can ramble and think about a bunch of things or controversial topics or have unusual opinions (but yours is not unusual I swear, I've heard it before).

Anyway, you were not questioning, you were stating with bunch of certainty that True love didnt exist as it was just chemicals and Disney. You are changing your argument all of a sudden.



Also IEEs are often optimistic more than cynical, radical or close minded.

Skepticism and pessimism or cold cynism is more like Ni in ILI also than Ti Ne of LII for example:

"This type of fatalism is spurned by their ability to see the negative in anything, which has its roots in the ILI's general dislike of expressing or reinforcing positive emotions. To an ILI, it may be easier to predict pessimistic results in order to avoid an unpleasant emotional reaction. Likewise, the ILI's sense of general self doubt leads him to be very conservative in his general outlook; why unnecessarily subject oneself to the uncertainty of possible disappointment? x "



I dont have to make it, the words already exist. There are at least 7 words for different type of love invented by the greeks. Plus you were saying that love is not real beyond psychological attraction so how do you explain love for kids according that limited understanding? again, its attraction? Or is a decision parents do for their kids as a man or a woman does for loving each other?



Ethics and moral are commonly mistaken and used by english native speakers as if they were synonyms but they aren't. Its an extended social mistake and it just happens in english afaik, not in the rest of the languages.

Its the same thing with feeling and emotion. English native speakers use the words interchangeably because its easier (not necesarily true) so they don't have to make distinctions, but both have different meanings in dictionaries and they have different etymological roots.

"Ethics (ethics) and moral (morals) are related to "good" and "bad" behavior. Although sometimes used interchangeably, they are different. Ethics (ethics) refers to rules provided from an outside source, such as codes of conduct in workplaces or the Ten Commandments (religious principles), while morals (morals) refer to the individual principles that the person has about good and evil."

Using ethics and moral indistinctly leads to misunderstandings in socionics functions (and life in general), this case is an example:

"In example of professional ethics (confusing with morals) is the work of a defense lawyer. The morality of said lawyer may indicate that the homicide is reprehensible and that the murderers should be punished, but their ethics as a legal professional requires that they defend their client as best they can even if they know that the client is guilty. Another example comes from the medical field. In many parts of the world, a doctor can not euthanize a patient, even if the patient requests it, due to the code of medical professional ethics. However, within his moral, the doctor may believe that his patient has the right to die to avoid further suffering."


Much of the confusion between the two words can be traced back to their origins. The word "ethics" (ethics) comes from the old French (etique), from the Latin modero (ethica) and the Greek (ethos) and they all refer to moral customs or philosophies. The word "moral" (morals) comes from modern Latin (moralis), which refers to appropriate behavior and manners in society. Both words, therefore, have similar meanings, but they are not synonymous, even in their original roots."


So according that, we can say that everyone has an internal sense or code of good an evil (ethicals, logicals, sensors, intuitives). However, not everyone behave with others ethically. The sense of Fi is behaving ethically with the other person (and how the other with you), thats why its called Ethics of relations, and thats why is ethic, not moral, because its conscious of how its actions, feelings and emotions will affect and be perceived by other (in relation to), plus the nature of the function is Introverted (has not expansive energy as Fe). Fi is ethics of relations, Fe is ethics of emotions. Thats it. Own sense of good and wrong (moral) is independent of functions.

This is stated in most descriptions:

FI
"Introverted ethics is an introverted, rational, and static information element. It is also called Fi, R, relational ethics, or white ethics. Fi is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing. Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.

Also, these types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an extroverted ethics (Fe) approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked"). Much of their decisions are based on how they themselves, or others in relation to them personally, feel in contrast to considering how "the big picture" is affected (such as groups of people)."

FE
"Extroverted ethics is an extroverted, rational, and dynamic information element. It is also called Fe, E, the ethics of emotions, or black ethics. Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.

Types that value Fe like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. "<--- this is very similar at your own understanding in here:





It wasnt me who started this conversation. I already said that you can think what you please or understand love as what you like the best, but still, you keep on with the replying. So, unless you are expecting me to agree with you in every word you speak to me even if I think that what you say is incorrect, I dont see why you think me answering back is being too argumentative. Plus, I hope this conversation ending up soon, since information is out there for everyone to look. And for future refernce, I dont enjoy so much this kind of conversations. So, in regards of you and I having so different perspectives, we can save energy and time in more pleasant/productive stuff in the future.

For the rest, its not a type hunting and I'm not saying you are X or Y type, because honestly I dont care, I'm just saying your concerns and statements are plain strange for Ne Fi valuing. I'm suspecting you are probably new into socionics stuff too so mistypes can happen.

quoting so it doesn't get lost on prior page

I think this all super accurate

just want to add I think of ethics in the socionics sense as the domain of the "should" in regard to human choices, whereas morality I think of as a general term for personal ethical stances and statements. in other words, ethics has a specific meaning in a socionics context, whereas morality is a general term without a specific meaning that gets thrown around in society a lot to mean different things, but it generally centers on ethical (in the socionics sense) content in some way (morality means different things in the mouths of Fe/Fi valuers, etc--yet both are ethical stances).

i also think if Ne means any stance at all, including absolutist ones, then all views are Ne by default and Ne loses all meaning. I think Ne/Fi does have a more specific meaning with certain aspects that you can't just subsume into "Ne can look like literally anything". its more like Ne egos can nevertheless speak from super ego and that becomes one more possibility but its not arising out of a characteristic of Ne ego stance. essentially posting to reiterate: inasmuch as a statement cannot be associated with Ne/Fi "all love is chemicals" is probably that statement, whereas it is very closely associated with a Ti physicalist stance, i.e. Ti/Se. that doesn't mean an IEE can't ever utter the words and mean it, it just means, to me, its not coming from a characteristically Ne/Fi place, its coming from perhaps a Ne/Fi ego person but not the Ne/Fi ego itself (inasmuch as it is a sub personality) but rather a statement of the super ego. or it could just be a statement of a Ti/Se ego, or be a statement of other kinds for other reasons, but I think Crystal's point is correct in saying, its antithetical to Ne/Fi inasmuch as Ne/Fi stands for anything without collapsing into meaninglessness under the guise of Ne encompassing everything

Ne/Fi is characterized by exploring far flung ethical possibilities in the face of difficult (hopeless) situations, "all love is chemicals" is the kind of Ti/Se lockdown that Ne/Fi typically exists to explode and subvert through imagination. its hard for me to imagine a more hopeless situation than love being merely a mirage produced by chemical reactions or that relations between non duals are doomed on some level

[Hope]

1. Your argumentative attitude and stubborn closed-mindedness are really annoying, frustrating and unpleasant. I've never met you but judging by this interaction I assume you have major difficulties working in groups and/or convincing other people of your viewpoints. So let me ask you, do you have leadership experience? Because your method(s) of communication are terribly ineffective.

2. I'm an IEE so my base is NeFi but I've also learned to develop my other functions as well as possible because of that 8 wing. I use SeTi more than your typical IEE. Because NeFi isn't applicable to most business/work situations while SeTi or TeSi are.

3. "Ethics and moral are commonly mistaken and used by english native speakers as if they were synonyms but they aren't" Arguing semantics.

1.What have groups to do in this whole situation? Is that some sort of Fe attempt of shaming or something? Your concern about leadership and effective communication with groups over 1x1 interactions could point again at Fe>Fi. SLIs are Fe PoLR btw.

Thats a very strange assumption anyway. I could apply the same faulty logic and say exactly the same thing to you. Also maybe my communication is ineffective with you because you and I have different quadra values?

You dont have any argument to say that I'm close minded. I said to you first that you were close minded in regards of your totalitarian statements expressed above.

2. I doubt it.

3. Is semantics forbidden when talking about theory and concepts the same to present arguments to those who direct to me at first? Thats like forbid logic.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Hey @domr I had to take you off ignore, your posts are too good At least not in the way you might think I mean...

On the subject of identical relations, I think you could maybe speak to @Cuivienen, he seems to exhibit the same creative as you. As people go, he's a good guy IMO. I think he might be your identical, and seems to be coming round to the self-typing of EIE.

[Chthonic Daydream]

Is nobody going to point out the fact that an IEE and an SLI are fighting over socionics? Ah, love at first sight

[Bertrand]

duality ain't eazy

[Sol]

Surely someone who's comfortable in their own skin

According to Jung to have a type means to have permanent conflict between conscious and unconscious, what will not allow you to feel comfortable. You'll be attracted to people with supplemental functions to feel better. In relations with same type you'll feel worse in average, anyway.

> I think there's an official ordering somewhere

There is nothing else official besides Jung and Augustinavichiute.
There is Augustinavichiute's opinion about duality as best and conflictor as worst. This may be taken as "official". With other IR she seems did not said clear rank opinion, but described from point of suplementing functions and same values.

> Identical relations are supposed to be the 2nd "best" matches for any given type

opinion common in MBT. and the other "good" there was seems a conflictor

Identity is good for co-operation on _same work_ between equals with similar skills and duties. Like between students of same specialization, especially when it fits good to their strong functions. This partly leads that people of same type may establish informal communications to support this kind of help to each other. But it's not soul attraction and deep friendship, it's more mutual esteem and surface sympathy. They join easy and may depart easy, as there is no deep personal support.

From point of IR compatibility identity has middle/neutral rank. Worse than semi-duality, activation, mirrage, mirror and mb orderer (in case you'll find the one which loves you indeed).

> perhaps a scenario where one party has healthy* self-esteem

Jung's type is personality disorder from his point. You can't have this and be healthy - you keep internal conflict. And your weak functions may express as wild and inferior to get unacceptance by other people which expect you to fit the norms.

> maybe two healthy* conflictors could actually get along pretty well

They'll have negative IR effects. They may tolerate it, to establish compromistic rules and behave ok on the surface or in limited situations. Mb even to love each other and such to have mutual understanding and compassion to support the motivation for adoptation. But all this will need the efforts. The stronger and healthier psyche - the easier will be to apply the needed efforts.

Conflictors would be interesting to research in love situations, as this may create psyche states for rising weak functions through nonvalued ones. Especially if it's possibly to switch to quasi-identity psyche state with trance technique - you'll get dualisation. But it can be risky for a psyche.

[Hope]

Is nobody going to point out the fact that an IEE and an SLI are fighting over socionics? Ah, love at first sight

I've never had a fight with an IEE.

Actually I've had few fights in my life.

And we werent "fighting" (I wasnt fighting I was just replying to his insistent and totalitarian responses and attitude) over socionics but love.

[Hope]

@domr poor guy. You are the worst case of projection I have ever seen.

You should stop trolling and derailing this thread already.

[Hope]

I have experience online.
I know how most people communicate on forums, reddit and YouTube.
You still haven't answered my question, twice. Nor did you apologize for arguing semantics.

Why should I apologize for talking about semantics?
How nonsensical. You are the one who should apologize for derailing this thread.

[Bertrand]

alternatively, you have to acknowledge that semantics sometimes matter and arguing semantics is only a dodge if someone knows they're arguing it and knows it doesn't matter and already understands what you meant entirely, which are a bunch of assumptions which amount to assuming moral guilt and also that you already know that the semantics don't matter (which is an assumption of logical clarity) in this case, and in a world full of people who go by the more or less literal meaning of words without recourse to more, to those people words do matter and so the speaker must likewise take responsibility for what they put out not just shift the burden to the listener and assume guilt if they want to clarify the label. because even if all those assumptions are nevertheless true there is still the matter of third party onlookers who need to be considered in how things in are labeled, and there are degrees of better or worse that do matter, as to the whole world, and so in that sense there tends to always be room for improvement when it comes to accuracy, so inasmuch as discussion works on that angle it can't be said to be totally useless and therefore a culpable manifestation of moral failure. in other words just clarify the language and move forward, it takes two to allow things to degenerate

[Bertrand]

well if she's not actually at fault it makes sense not to admit any, further, characterizing them as dodges is highly debatable, and I'm not sure what "victory" in this context even means. I don't think Crystal is trying to "win" anything. I could be wrong, but I think you've just erroneously perceived her as some kind of bad actor and are generating a narrative in keeping with that assumption, but I don't think that's warranted

[at sirac son of sirac]

And as a result of these mistakes, she escalated the conversation and that devolved into aruging semantics.
Bad character and poor communication skills, that is what I see.

While these things might be true (I'm not supporting anyone here), i'm just wondering why you are feeling the need to point it out?

I would imagine that someone with good communication skills (I assume you class yourself as this, typing as IEE) would be better placed to circumvent this?

I just don't know if accusing someone of these things in this manner is the best way to resolve anything, but to escalate a problem than resolve it.

Anyway i'm curious how you see all this as ethical type.

BTW I disagree with you too - there are different types of love.

[Hope]

Good people take accountability for their actions.
You did a bad action. You argued semantics.
Arguing semantics is bad because it avoids admitting that the core content was valid and instead attempts to dismiss the other person's ideas by changing the label on the box to win the argument. That is disrespectful.
The result is that people don't like it when a person argue semantics and don't respect or listen to that type of person.
That's why you should apologize, because you made a mistake and good people take responsibility.

So far in my conversation with you I have observed a complete and lack of character. (neglected ethics).

I'm not good people. You are not good person imo either. No one is good. But then, you are ethically, logically and relationally disrespectful, you communicate aggressively, you want to impose your opinions, then try to blame others inventing stuff and attacking personally instead of accounting your own mistakes (projecting guilt) and dealing in a healthy way with your own feelings, then, your ethics are aggressive, invasive and disruptive. You dont have good relational skills. You have maybe low self esteem, and you just want to get some attention (hence your tone and this derailment).

Grow up. Become better person yourself then you can help others to develop ethics. Not before. You cant ask me and point out me while you communicate in such disrespectful way yourself (and not just towards me).

Asking for apologies because you don't have more arguments is ridiculous. I responded to all of your claiming then I did it too with semantics (but you didnt do it, instead you started to saying about leadership, groups, online time and else, all invented). Giving logical explanations about a topic in whatever shape or form, is not worthy of an apology even if you feel bad for not having arguments. Thats the nature of discussion. Talking logically is not an offense even if you are an ethical. But you know what is offensive and aggressive? Quoting me over and over with totalitarian statements about subjective issues, then derailing the conversation to attack me personally with invented stuff for at the end asking me to apologize. All of that with 0 zero proof to back any of your sayings.

Now lets do this short and just ask me in a nice way for letting you "win" (as you think about victory) this argument so you can feel better about youself. Then maybe I'll reconsider. I like to be nice too.

[Hope]

alternatively, you have to acknowledge that semantics sometimes matter and arguing semantics is only a dodge if someone knows they're arguing it and knows it doesn't matter and already understands what you meant entirely, which are a bunch of assumptions which amount to assuming moral guilt and also that you already know that the semantics don't matter (which is an assumption of logical clarity) in this case, and in a world full of people who go by the more or less literal meaning of words without recourse to more, to those people words do matter and so the speaker must likewise take responsibility for what they put out not just shift the burden to the listener and assume guilt if they want to clarify the label. because even if all those assumptions are nevertheless true there is still the matter of third party onlookers who need to be considered in how things in are labeled, and there are degrees of better or worse that do matter, as to the whole world, and so in that sense there tends to always be room for improvement when it comes to accuracy, so inasmuch as discussion works on that angle it can't be said to be totally useless and therefore a culpable manifestation of moral failure. in other words just clarify the language and move forward, it takes two to allow things to degenerate

Semantics matter in this case because Fi is 'relational ethics' even if most in here like to think its 'moral'. Then, concepts as 'love' enter into account since love is another form of relation. But this guy doesnt want to accept it because of probable mistype and the mess he already made. Now hes looking for an easy exit arguing to feel victimized by semantics when hes the only perpetrator. Plus I think he knows it since I dont think those two 8 s in his self type are there because of no reason. He already knows hes aggressive and that he has power issues.

[Hope]

“At least not the part” means I might have a valid rational. Okay so why start by saying I am wrong? And if I don’t understand the “part of love [she] was speaking about,” then why doesn’t she inform me. These are rookie mistakes.

I didnt start saying you were wrong (thats an invention or self victimization of yours). I start saying attraction is different to true love. Physical attraction is a part of love, not all.

What is the reason or rational? How does this contradict what I said?

I said to you that ppl love each other even when there is no attraction (example kids, brothers, etc) Then there are a lot of ppl that arise attraction and then what? All ppl cheat each other or change partners when they find someone more appealing? How do you explain loyalty? I said your understanding was partial as you dont take into account different situations nor possibilities. Your answer? Attacking me.

Then about conflictors, there are conflicting descriptions from various authors. There is no repulsion in conflicting relations, there is more likely psychological attraction at first since dual is quasi identical to conflictors (same strong IEs) but with the time and interactions, differences arise and seeking functions arent satisfied. Values are different. In the same way, duals relations can start not so good then going better and better with the time if they get dualization (at least SLI-IEE). Links later.

Plus I said 'I'm one to think' when talking about love in conflicting. Are you arguing against my belief/theory about lasting love being possible between conflictors? Whats your reason for doing that if its just my personal opinion? Ppl have the right of having personal opinions or theories too.

And again what is the reason or rational?

Thats my same question for you.

She doesn't address my logic or reasoning.

I did and pointed out how closed and partial it is.

She isn't trying to explain herself better.

I did but you cant or dont want to understand better. Your response was talking about leadership and bad communication skills with groups.
Thats why I said maybe the information elements of you and me are valued different.

She is writing contradictory sentences.

?

And as a result of these mistakes, she escalated the conversation and that devolved into aruging semantics.
Bad character and poor communication skills, that is what I see.

no, it was a response at your Fi is moral instead of relational ethics (how is defined in theory). I see the same in you, and what's with that? Thats just more personal attack towards me since there is no logical support from your side. Btw, I'm not even angry at you.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Because that's exactly what the IEE does. NeFi is about questioning the character of a person and determining whether they are good or bad. You can see a similar attitude in the ILE which is questioning systems and determing if they are valid or not, e.g. ILE's tend to question religion and be atheists.


I had a similar conversation with a ESE. All interactions are 2 way streets. It doesn't matter how good my communication skills are if the other person is making mistakes.


Fe rationale.

domr = dominator

(Samuel L. Jackson type of EIE.)

[Hope]

Contradiction. If no one is good then it's impossible to develop ethics since developing is acting good.

I never framed this argument as a winning. That's a sign of low self-esteem. I'm not viewing this as a power struggle. I see a person that has no desire to take responsibility for their actions. Will clip out statements they cannot dispute in a quote, then focus on statements they can disprove. You are the one trying to win while I am trying to communicate.


You didn't address what I said. I'm not repeating myself.


Sexual/"True" love is different from strong attachment. People use the word love to describe their family members and children and other strong friends but it's definitely not the same "feeling."


I never said that.



Do you have experience with conflict relationships? The psychological attraction in conflict relationships is that you find it easy to talk about subjects. The problem is you the reason you find it easy to talk about subjects is because you are arguing over everything. My bestfriend from high school was a conflctor and we spoke for 7 years until he called it quits. At the end, he said we fight about everything and there is no point in speaking to me. LSi, so i guess it makes sense that he made that decision. That's the final result of conflict relationship. The partners realize that they disagree about everything and the other person won't listen to their advice. No point in communicating when it won't be appreciated and will lead to a fight. There is no magic true love that overrides reality and will make the partners want to cuddle together; physical attraction is all that will do that and only for a time because eventually you wake up and realize you are in the arms of a person that hates everything value, idea and decision you make and will never support you.



That's the same. All ethics involves effecting other people, either directly (Fe) or indirectly (Fi).

Like it took you too long to think in your response didnt you?

Anyway, your friend was right, I'm not going to talk with someone like you either, its a total waste of time. According your own words, you are the one who doesnt know how to communicate with others since your logic is poor and your ethics deceitful, its useless to say anything, you are contentious and your arguments are fallacious. Still, you try to project your own failures in others, saying for example that I (Crystal), communicate wrongly when its you the one who has had problems in communication with ppl before (ie, ur "conflictor", I bet he even wasnt LSI but you typed him like that just because you were all argumentative with him always and expected of him to remain in silence or agree with you, which is what you were doing with me). Finally you are young and you probably are clueless about what I'm talking about and referring to with the word 'love' since you havent experienced it properly yet beyond sexual attraction.

Anyway...as I said before, think what you please about whichever matter, I couldnt care less. Just dont quote/address me again. Have fun.

[The Reality Denialist]

domr = dominator

(Samuel L. Jackson type of EIE.)

Dominant EIE: Julija Tymošenko. They appear in politics from time to time. Be more afraid of ****** subtype.

[Chae]

Be more afraid of ****** subtype.

[Sol]

Dominant EIE: Julija Tymošenko. They appear in politics from time to time. Be more afraid of ****** subtype.

Yuliya Timoshenko's ******'s type would be enough for suspicions, especially after what she said. Subtypes are for kids for their kidding.

[The Reality Denialist]

Show me the way to Aus******!

I couldn't resist. Sorry!

[Pookie]

What a stupid argument.

It's like you guys were arguing semantics, and knew full well you were arguing semantics, but then acted like you guys didn't see each other's points. Of course you did! You were arguing the meaning of each other's words.

But at the same time, you guys were arguing semantics over something it sounds like you don't understand fully. Either of you. As neither of you are wrong, you just have an ideological viewpoint blocking you from seeing the differing viewpoint as complimentary and not contradictory.

Love is quite literally your golden standard of ethical behavior towards another. Something only has value if it can effect another, otherwise it's masturbation. Your idiological/emotional/spiritual/mental/psychogical stance towards them affects your treatment of them.

Love isn't real unless it's a thing you do. An action. If it's something you feel, then it would only be for you, and definitionally love is about union or consolidation, not mental masturbation.

So you're both right, and you're both wrong. It's not really anyone's fault, but both of you should feel bad about it. So at least you remember it.

[Hope]

What a stupid argument.

It's like you guys were arguing semantics, and knew full well you were arguing semantics, but then acted like you guys didn't see each other's points. Of course you did! You were arguing the meaning of each other's words.

But at the same time, you guys were arguing semantics over something it sounds like you don't understand fully. Either of you. As neither of you are wrong, you just have an ideological viewpoint blocking you from seeing the differing viewpoint as complimentary and not contradictory.

Love is quite literally your golden standard of ethical behavior towards another. Something only has value if it can effect another, otherwise it's masturbation. Your idiological/emotional/spiritual/mental/psychogical stance towards them affects your treatment of them.

Love isn't real unless it's a thing you do. An action. If it's something you feel, then it would only be for you, and definitionally love is about union or consolidation, not mental masturbation.

So you're both right, and you're both wrong. It's not really anyone's fault, but both of you should feel bad about it. So at least you remember it.

Argument was stupid indeed, and unnecessary.

Guys were arguing over something, at the same time, it sounds. But ts like you cant see our viewpoints are contradictory instead of complimentary differing from blocking ideological viewpoints that we just have. Wrong are you, neither. Fully understand, you don't like semantics.

Another towards ethical behavior of golden standard, your love is literally quite. Masturbation is otherwise, another effect it can has. If only. Your stance of value psychological/mental/spiritual/emotional/ideological affects towards them treatment.

Then, union about love and mental consolidation is, definitionally, not masturbation. A love unless isn't real, you do its thing. Feel you. And you would be something and do an action only if it.

But about it, feel bad you should, both. It remember you wrong are, at least, so, both you are right. Fault anyone is, really, its not.


/jk

[at sirac son of sirac]

Argument was stupid indeed, and unnecessary.

Guys were arguing over something, at the same time, it sounds. But ts like you cant see our viewpoints are contradictory instead of complimentary differing from blocking ideological viewpoints that we just have. Wrong are you, neither. Fully understand, you don't like semantics.

Another towards ethical behavior of golden standard, your love is literally quite. Masturbation is otherwise, another effect it can has if only value something. Your stance of psychological/mental/spiritual/emotional/ideological affects towards them treatment.

Then, union about love and mental consolidation is, definitionally, not masturbation. A love unless isn't real, you do its thing. Feel you. And you would be something and do an action only if it.

But about it, feel bad you should, both. It remember you wrong are, at least, so, both you are, right. Fault anyone is, really, its not.


/jk

Alpha NT.

[Delilah]

My answer to OP is that you have to keep in mind to what extend one identifies with type and allows for various factors. In my case i have misgivings about my type but let's just say that it is the closest type to me given the options and my life experiences etc. I notice another ESI at work and i see a lot of differences like her Se is much more physical and pronounced: like she grabbed some documents off of my hands one day, like literally physically took them. It's not a matter of her being rude, just her volition-ally noticing something about me and my situation at the moment and deciding to act on that impulse. I didn't like that action - the papers were confidential and she shouldn't have access to those - , and there are several other things I notice about her that irk me. I don't think it's a matter of self-esteem, in short, and it is not a given that you'll have to like an 'identical' so to speak. I think i've partially addressed your question, sorry for whatever i've missed.

[mikemex]

I thought I should explain to you for you, love is not 'just chemicals'.

Biologically speaking, a cell, and an organism is greater than the sum of its parts, which is called holistic.

The approach your taking is called reductionism, which does not fit biological organisms: science sees your body as greater than the sum of its parts.

Love, consciousness, awareness are holistic, are things greater than ourselves.

*takes his hat off*

[Hope]

Nice insult.

Which insutl? you take everything as an insult. It just took you too long to post again (as right now). You delay for weeks just for coming to repeat the exact same things you said days ago. Its ridiculous. Why do you even come back for posting this?

I identified that 1) You refuse to address parts of my posts that appear contradictory to your POV. 2) The parts of my posts you answer at nit-picked where you choose to ignore the forest for the trees. 3) When I do have a valid point, you dismiss it with statements such as “At least not the part.” From my experience, you appear to be a classic internet troll i.e. a socially inept person that argues to win (which is a word you used) rather than to be right. So I asked you a basic behavioral interview question to test this hypothesis, do you have experience influencing or working with other people? You could not even give me a straight answer "Yes..detail detail detail" or "No." Instead you turn a standard question into an attack on me. I've seen enough. You lack character and I would advise you to focus on developing your ethics functions. Assuming you are an SLI, it does not appear you know how to use Fi to make judgements.

Pookie it was not not a meaningless argument. I saw that Crystal has poor character and now I know to not trust her opinions. NeFi

1. You focus on " behavioral ethics" of my person, you convert discussion in a personal attack. You do this as an attempt to escape from the main topic in question. Thats playing dirty. (Weak Fi)
2. You have derailed this thread completely = you are a troll, and disrespectful towards OP.
3. Your logic and arguments make no sense at all.
4. You dont know "how" or "when" to stop. Thats hardly Ne and Fi.

[whodat]

Fi is morality not love.

4D Ne Base. I've examined reality and true love does not exist.

Wrong.

[Hope]

Oh look, still doesn't address anything I said. Sad!

because you didn't said anything in reality. There is no substance neither logic. I dont have to respond to your baseless personal accusations because they are off topic. Then, you were the only one insulting me and its ridiculous that you point me out for ethical development when you are the one insulting me and making a scene.

[Hope]

I wrote my logic here



If you don't know how to respond then that is on you. I've conversed with a quite a few different members on this forum and you have created the worst, most confrontational dynamic. To reiterate for the Xth time, the fact that you cannot even provide an example of you being able to work with other people says it all. YOU ARE CHOOSING TO IGNORE MY LOGIC AND REALITY. You clearly have a lot of interpersonal relationship problems and I'm done speaking with you.

1. I dont have to answer about personal stuff that doesnt have anything to do with the topic. You seem very interested or centered in that, I dont know exactly why or why its meaningful or how that will improve this situation. I do have experience in those areas, just to let you know. I'm not going to explain or go further into that because thats none of your business. Get over it.
2. Then, I didnt confronted you more than with reality and your own faulty logic. You were the one quoting me and pushing over and over, pretending to be always right and thinking that your pov is the only one, being disrespectful towards personal views and life experiences of older ppl.
3.Your posts doesnt have any logic, they are all derailments, just look at this thread all. You went from cinfusinf love with attraction to justify that "love doesnt exist" (which wasnt the topic of thread), to attacking me in several levels (which wasnt the topic either) to argue about my ethics, to finally push me to answer at you nonsensical off topic questions. Where's the logic?
4. You seem very childish and immature.
5. I dont have any interpersonal relationship problems at all. Just because you and I dont have a common ground or understanding doesnt mean that its the same with all my relations. Plus, I do talk with other ppl normally besides you (and not just in forums, lol). Again, just more baseless personal accusations off topic.

Finally, fine, and I really hope you dont decide to show up again in a week or so.
You stopping talking is what I've been waiting all this time since you started this meaningless and totally unrequested conversation.