Discuss.
Printable View
Discuss.
I could see this being the case if the person was shitty/incompatible/etc. but you still felt a mutual understanding in communication, or the manner in which you each annoyed each other. That could exacerbate things more than simply dealing with an opposing quadra member who was not only incommunicable but also a stupid prick.
Although, from my experience, it isn't the people in my own quadra who are the most frustrating. I can dislike some betas intensely, sure; but I still ruefully recognize them as my kin on some level, and feel a more personalized ease in conflicting with them. Most deltas who annoy me (which is the majority) I don't pay much attention to anyway; but if I do, I usually have to keep it brief, to prevent the internal frustration from boiling over (but most deltas I interact with are snobby jews, so it's not the best sample). Neighboring quadras, however, can be endlessly annoying, because it's like they go about things similarly but in entirely divergent and wrong directions. Alphas use Fe for stupid purposes, etc.
I'll have to think about the veracity of your claims. Not that I hate many people, but for those that I could say I do with some confidence, I think I understand them. But, these individuals are not necessarily in my quadra and the reasons are not quadra related.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your assumption is that one understands what one hates. A sound assumption but it is my belief that Socionics is not the determinant of profound understanding of another person.
I tend to think of functions as "mental tools," which have conclusions that take up "mental space." We configure our perception of the world to fit what we have seen, using the mental tools we possess. Now, if someone has different mental tools than you entirely, their perception of the world is probably going to be drastically different in very key ways, even if their experience is identical. Given the huge differences in how you put things together, your "mental space" is probably not even threatened or disturbed by what you see in a person this different from yourself; all you can really to is attempt to understand the differences.
On the other hand, if you meet someone who has similar mental tools, but has drastically different life experiences, then you are probably going to wind up with very different views on things. However, they are going to be constructed in similar ways, ways that each other can understand, but given your different experiences, you are naturally going to think that this other person is placing emphasis in all the wrong places.
In a sense, you have to think similarly to someone in order to disagree with them; you have to be trying to "occupy the same space," so to speak.
A great example of this is my LSE mother and I. She places emphasis on things in her life that, from a logical perspective, I can see as potentially valid to another human being, but I just don't think like she does; we just have entirely different priorities in life. We place emphasis on entirely different things in our lives. However, our goals, while divergent, aren't necessarily conflicting: she wants a stable, happy life for herself and her family, and to contribute to the world positively in any way that is within her means, without taking things to an extreme. I, on the other hand, want to flourish personally and artistically, and more than any pursuit of personal happiness, stability, having a family life, or concrete contribution to society, I want to create works of art and literature that will alter the way people think, that they will relate to in ways that will both comfort and disturb them; to make them feel human but question their humanity; to reassure them that they are not alone but discourage them from ever being anyone but themselves; to always climb and reach for higher things, but not be afraid to fall and revel in the depths of themselves. Our views are not entirely incompatible or contrary, but they aren't exactly commensurate either; simply put, we're just very different.
On the other hand, my former boss, an LSI ex Army Ranger, sees the world in terms that are very familiar to me: it was always easy for me to understand what he was saying, and I very quickly picked up on his thought processes, ways of doing things, and even his broader perspectives on life just by interacting with him. However, because we had drastically different experiences in life, our views were totally incompatible, and I think had we ever gotten to know each other on the basis of discussing personal views, we would have disagreed vehemently: he believes, above all else, in personal integrity and adherence to "rules" that everyone should follow in order to promote personal growth and for humanity to remain afloat.
Personally I see his perspective on people as dangerous and intrusive: I think that forcing people to follow "rules" is a pathetic excuse for self-actualization, and undermines everything real about existing as a genuine human being. I'm sure he would see my perspective similarly: intrusive upon the inherent order in society, and dangerous to the way things have come to function. In some greater sense, I'm sure both of these perspectives are necessary, but you can see what I'm getting at here.
My mother, if she knew about these two different perspectives, would probably think that both of us are too adamant, and take our own views too seriously, but would not feel threatened by either of us, because she knows that she is living the life that she loves, and that the world is, in some sense, better for her having lived.
However, while I see more merit in my mother's take on life, and see it as less "evil," in a sense, when it comes to literally placing myself in another person's shoes, I could never live her life. My ex-boss has a sense of purpose and duty in his life that I see as absolutely essential to my continued existence; if I ever thought that I would simply descend into being placated by an average life, just do my "level best," have a "stable life," I would be horrified, disgusted with myself, and probably turn suicidal. I just cannot comprehend ever wanting to resign to that view of the world. However, the military-esque sense of duty given off by my boss, the way he single-mindedly pursues his goals, is admirable to me: while I disagree with just about everything he stands for, I can understand why he feels the way he feels about things, and I see traits in him, even negative ones, that I know I share, that are disgusting to me simply BECAUSE they are exactly how I am sometimes.
This, I think, is a good example of how people from the same quadra try to "occupy the same space," in a sense, and therefore are more likely to conflict, whereas people from opposing quadras are more likely than not simply confused by one another, incapable of standing in the other's shoes.
Sounds true of beta, however I presume you don't really need a thread about it. It is relentless.
I hate myself the most. I am in my quadra. How about you folks?
I undermine this thread. Quadra relations are already used as a typing system all on their own, however we'd be worse off if it gets flipped on its head. There would still be a continuous shift of interpretation, but this idea would be to misinterpret theory from the start.
I usually have the most problems with Betas, despite the fact that I can clearly see how amazingly charming Betas can be.
With other quadras I don't take this as personally -- so I may dislike someone from any other quadra (and they may be very annoying). With Betas, I dislike them AND I feel personally offended. That's probably just the conflicting quadra/functions at work.
(For example -- at a coffee shop everyone brings laptops and sits at the "bar." It's usually pretty quiet as everyone is working. Two ENFjs next to me are talking reallllly loudly, especially the girl who is getting louder and louder and starts gesturing and hitting into me 1 out of 3 times. Her voice and flailing limbs are very anti-Si. All of the Fe (which can be used in a fun way) just seems annoying to me because it's not fitting in w/ the chill Si-friendly vibe the place usually has. Where as w/ another quadra I'd think "oh the poor girl is just trying to be liked and doesn't realize it" or something, I was actually getting really angry w/ this one. If it was a Delta being annoying, they'd still be annoying, but it wouldn't be conflicting w/ my functions, so it wouldn't be "personal.")
That said, I just met an ENFj and INFp guy at a bar the other day and wow, I really liked them. They were incredibly charming, fun, upbeat and we all had a terrific conversation. I was super drawn to them and their happy Fe. Then they got into using a lot of Ni/Ti, as in "if a person flunks law school a few times they must be stupid and suck and should give up" versus Ne/Te "it could have been another factor, the person still has potential to be amazing as a lawyer" anyway, point was I liked their Fe though. And they were charming.
:? Only if you look at it on the surface level, and if you're doing that then Socionics fails from the start, because you wind up saying "Oh I don't like/get along/agree with this person, therefore he/she is in an opposing quadra". If you know WHY people disagree or don't like each other, then you can have a better understanding of how the disagreement may or may not be relevant to Socionics type.Quote:
Originally Posted by polikujm
Well sure. I don't have anything bad to say about my quadra (the people), so it would seem like the current theory is doing just fine for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Maybe this is only the case with Betas because we are the ones who usually try to "take up space" :lol:
sigh...
.
Well, that's not necessarily discordant with what I'm saying; I can understand why my ex-boss believes what he believes, but it just so happens that our beliefs come into direct contradiction with one another because of the very nature of our vested interests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
I guess I assumed a loose interpretation of the word "hate."
Keep it real, Gilly :lol:
I don't really get this. It sounds like you typed them as beta because of their behaviors, which you determined were Fe/Se/whatever based on their ostensible manifestations. And then you say that if a girl from another quadra did the same thing, you would interpret it differently? That doesn't really make sense to me. As far as I know, being loud or emotionally clamorous or aggressive is not in any way intrinsically related to Fe/Se, despite it sometimes feeling that way; this means that the trait shouldn't determine the functions. And if the person annoys you, they annoy you; why must your reaction to them be determined by your personal assessment of their motivations, which could be entirely divergent from their actual motivations, as it is based on what appears to be a superficial induction?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewels
I find Se environments "comfortable" -- they don't always have to be rowdy and shit; it's a subtler, personal feeling. Fe doesn't have to be loud; ESTjs are some of the raunchiest types I have seen, in ways. etc. etc.
Same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by tuturututu
I had to think about this. There are more behaviors that I hate than people. It's hard for me to hate any particular individual if I am at least minimally acquainted with them.
Generally the people I can't stand are those I observe from afar, like celebrities, politicians, people on Judge Judy. And in those cases, they are definitely not people in my own quadra. I also don't see this proposition as being based in Socionics. It seems opposed actually.
Probably. The cliche 'there is a thin line between love and hate' has a lot of truth to it. And also 'what gives you great pleasure also has the power to give you great pain.' So therefore in a way, I can see how this is somewhat true. I don't think it's fully true though, I think it's a half-truth. The people you hate the most are in your quadra.
Well, the people you LOVE the most are in your quadra as well.
Your conflicting quadra tends to confuse you and make you feel misunderstood. It's not all that emotional, it's more like a base analytical understanding that gets all skewered. You just talk over and past each other, and direct one-on-one communication feels awkward. Even if you both WANT to understand and love each other, it doesn't seem to be happening. And such, more dangerous hate naturally seems to fester under the surface between these two quadras.
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
please explainQuote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
Some of the beta NFs I know are like this. They frequently express strong opinions and statements that arouse strong reactions in others, often unintentionally offending others in the process. I don't think their intention is to offend though. I think its that they feel that if they have strong feelings about something, they shouldn't have to hold them back. Either that or they are joking around and trying to promote an upbeat atmosphere and the people around them are taking it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by jewels
And I do think there is a difference in how betas and alphas use Fe. Beta Fe feels edgier, for example making bold statements about things that can be rather controversial and stir strong reactions in people. Alpha Fe feels more lighthearted and less edgy. The artistocratic/democratic difference may also play a role. I think Beta Fe is more inclined to make jokes about certain groups of people. Alpha Fe feels more inclusive, more careful not to make generalizations about certain types of people.
When I hate someone that's from the beta quadra, its sometimes due to this difference in use of Fe, which I find offensive when carried too far.
Arguments with those in my quadra tend to blow over relatively quickly... E.g. today a Se-SLE girl was being annoying, and my best friend, a Se-LSI, said to her, "shut the fuck up and get out of the car."
To this, she responded, "oh, now you're gettin an attitude?"
Then they both started laughing.
They were both genuinely pissed for a second... But there is a level of understanding between them that enabled them to just "let it go."
...I tend to steer clear of Deltas... Most of the people I "hate" are ISFps...
Could this have something to do with the supervisory relation betwen ISFp and ENFj, with the ISFp being the supervisor?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuJu
I've found that I can be uncomfortable with ESTp as that type is my supervisor. I don't usually "hate" them per se, but rather feel uncomfortable with them. Subtype plays a big difference- its mostly been the ESTp-Se's that I find annoying.
Nah, the people in my quadra are too easy to understand and empathize with for me to hate, or even passionately dislike. The worst feeling I feel is indifference (which is pretty bad for me, I hate not caring one way or the other about someone). The people who inspire passionate negative feelings in me can come from any of the other three quadras, but I can't think of a single one from my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
At first I couldn't identify with hating people, but then I thought about it. There are certain times when I'll think a person is completely worthless and the world would be better off if they had never existed. I think that's when I hate someone. It doesn't even necessarily take me a lot of exposure to a person to feel that way about them. I can tell you right now the kinds of behaviors that make me want to wipe a person off the face of the earth. And I can't associate any of them with typical Delta flaws. A few examples:
- Betrayals of the innocent.
- Abandoning someone who trusts you for your own advantage.
- Gaslighting someone.
- Gleeful amoral behavior.
That's the way it's supposed to be used.Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
I'm definitely guilty of those last two :lol:
Beta Quadra; Where your friends are your enemies, your enemies are your enemies, and where you attract so much attention even your enemies enemies will sometimes band together and lend a hand in your demise.
lol, so true...
Not true for me, really.
Fuck, I thought immediately that Beta can do all 4 gleefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danielle
It's an odd phenomenon because I feel as though I feel the most comfortable with Deltas IRL but--and it pains me oh so much to say this--half of the deltas here are the oddest, most morally judgemental and uptight people I've probably come across and it bothers me. That is half the reason I never thought I was delta.
Opposites attract :)?
So it's settled then; you're LSI.Quote:
Originally Posted by jessica129
Be honest, you enjoy the crazies? I am so far from LSI it's ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Park
Maritsa is my favorite.
when I have an issue with betas (and more often than not it's with j-subs, theatrical hyenas), it feels closer to the edge, detachedly personal in a way; whereas with deltas, conflict is always implied by the sterile sense of moral contiguity, if that makes sense.
As a rule, I get along with Deltas quite well. As long as they're not withdrawn individuals with no sense of fun, which alas isn't really uncanny with this quadra.
But the truth is, I always have been equally drawn to Alphas. Perhaps more, even. Therein lay part of my past problem with typing. On the Polish forum I had been given this beautiful decoration -
Attachment 2090
And so I brag.
Same here most of my IRL friends are Alpha what makes me start to think if i am Alpha myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by malna
Two possibilities:Quote:
Originally Posted by jessica129
1) those deltas aren't deltas
2) those deltas are deltas and their deeply held values would be kept tightly under wraps in interpersonal interactions; it's only here in an anonymous forum that those seeingly uptight views are shared and perhaps come across the wrong way. However, it's those deeply held hidden uptight values that makes them the people you enjoy interacting with IRL.
what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Park
What about me????
3) Maritsa isn't Delta.
You take it for granted that your friends' quadra is a good indicator for your own quadra ("I'm a reflection of my peers" :Fe:-leading).Quote:
Originally Posted by Daft21
No I don't take it for granted but my family is also mostly Alpha and I think it could be that I value :Ti: :Fe: and not :Te: :Fi: because i might had a wrong understanding of :Fi: and :Fe: and typed myself mainly on :Fi: valuing if I value :Ti or :Te: was anyway never clear for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kill4Me
In general, I don't think the people you hate the most from your quadra although I can see why people might sometimes think that for various reasons.
*You are more likely to get closer to people in your quadra, so you see their true flaws as well.
*They can disappoint you because at first you seem so compatible but then you find differences and start having conflicts. This is true for any relationship but it hurts more because you thought things were going so well.
*There is more likely to be a rivalry due to similar interests you are more likely to compete for the same territory.
Interesting idea. I'm sure that these people are not well liked only because of superficial details though. It'd be a good thing to test.
One test I'd like to do is put 16 people representative of each type and see what happens. Another variable to consider is type knowledge, so we could try three experiments, one where the people know nothing about type, one where people know their type but not others, and one where people have their type displayed on their name tags. If they don't take to talking, it might be good to tell them to try and socialize with the others.
No I dislike this personality the most:
https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M...=0&w=225&h=162
maybe I really am a beta after all!
Hate is always a converted form of fear. I don't fear Delta people, they are nice and having shared values is good. I would rather say I hate/fear but also respect the Beta STs who can exercise the IEs that I am insecure with. I see overt force and cluster thinking as threats once they get in the way of broad humanitarian views (:Ne::Fi:) so it makes sense.
As it is usually said love and hate is not something I comprehend fully. Just some sort of preference over the other. It can be bit pathetic in a way.
There are twisted people in each quadra and in each type.
Generally? I can see my own failures in :Ne: / :Ti: egos. No hate.
On the other hand some people get stuck in their ways with their insecurities. I possibly try to mold or open up some :Si: / :Fe: ego approach. I think it is mainly for good. :halo:
Does not compute personally. To me fear and hate are completely separate entities. I think you can fear and like something at the same time.?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
I want to hear an explanation.
OK, if :Fi: valuing people take stance from egocentric perspective then :Fe: valuers do it from allocentric ways. Hence in :Fe: valuing way fear something external like acknowledging danger while :Fi: do not essentially like it when it hurts them.
?????????????????????????????????????:confused2:?? ????????????????????????????????:thinking:???????? ??????????????????
Cute :D I hope this helps: My statement is a :Fi: perspective. Fear means experiencing threat (instead of well-wishing) from another person, and hate is the defense mode to shield the bad intentions from your perceived vulnerability. Fear, in allocentric :Fe: terms, is an emotional expression displaying fright, while hate is blatant disdain, snark, avoidance, or anger signaling.Quote:
Originally Posted by unsuccessfull Alphamale
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
Can you go more into hate? I think you're onto something but I'm not totally clear on it
LIE, because they are fuled by ignorant judgement and consider it empowerment. Generally they are douchbags as well. Coincidentally it's the type I despise the most out of all types. Just the other week one of these was talking shit behind the back of a really good guy who stutters when he speaks. I wanted to break his fucking face.
that's weird, I've never personally encountered a LIE who was a dick--they've always been really well meaning, humble, albeit straightforward (from the point of view of ILI), people... its always been SLE doing their best LIE impression that usually go over the top with itQuote:
Originally Posted by Within
(not saying it can't happen, just that this has always been my experience, its hard for me to picture LIE being a true dick, a part of effective Te is knowing not to do that stuff, etc)
in fact, I personally feel like I'm more of a dick than any LIE I've ever known. They seem more sensitive in general to the people around them than me
LIE in socionics are ENTJ in mbti right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
rite, MBTI ENTJ = socionics LIE (inasmuch as crossovers are valid--they're all a little different)Quote:
Originally Posted by Within
In that case my hatered was directed correctly. But perhaps I've overgeneralized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
People barely see the opposite quadra, and the conflicts don't satisfy them, but rather bore them probably. If they even bother with them in the first place. I think the people that conflict most are in your own quadra because you actually take their conflict style seriously because the way they conflict is more obvious to you and you can actually fight back in the same language. Betas complain about people who cause drama, they never talk about the person who minds their own business, but they secretly like the person who causes drama because they talk about them all the time instead of the people who are invisible to them, the ones who lack much emotional involvement and turbulence.
I couldn't imagine what would be worse for a Beta who wants to be and feel right and separate themselves from their opponent... than a Delta who wants to improve relations and keep things objective and helpful for both sides. The Beta might immediately feel "turned off" if you don't match their tone and intensity... I feel like they secretely want you to feel that they are wrong so that they have one less person to care about and one more person on their list of people to not like, it makes things simple and clear, unlike someone who doesn't get along with you yet wants to be closer. Idk I'm not a Beta, but Betas are the most interesting conflict wise and consequently that's what I decided to talk about. xD
totally agree WRT to your assesment of betas. They're the quintessential "hate and love are not opposites, but two sides of the same coin, the true opposite of which is indifference" in other words betas love to hate as much as they love to love, which is why they're so sexual in their interactions and why they have a weird aversion to delta mildness of all things (I, without exaggeration, had a beta try to frame delta not liking provacatory inauthentic hyperbole as some kind of repressive "emotional regulation" of a higher order than what Fe does every time it has a majority)Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogman
if you disagree with a beta and engage them in a protracted debate they're liable to think you're stalking them, when from your point of view it may have been a dispassionate discussion over some mainly academic points. the truth is: a part of them would like it more if it were the case that you were taking personal interest in them, despite that it gets outwardly framed as some kind mark against their (in their head only) "adversary's" argument. this is where one starts to realize how pathetic betas can be, and that interacting with them in general is mostly a waste of time (except to engage them in their wheelhouse--social relations), because for them its never really about the truth--its about their personal relationship to you and how consequently that might effect their relationships with others. the "truth", whatever that may be, is just incidental to that, inherently nihilistic and beta, worldview along with whatever present circumstances they currently find themselves in--all their arguments being mainly thinly veiled pleas for attention, which is why they're so hyperbolic all the time--begging someone to (personally speaking, in the case of ILI, which seeks to equalize) "correct" (or, in the case of others, respond in general, i.e.: interact with) them
even this will likely be interpreted by beta as a call for attention because it seems like i'm taking interest in them, when its really an alpha-gamma discussion and I really don't want any beta input; besides, any of their objections will be attacks on the already established phenomena in play and I don't really want to go into a metaphysical debate on reality with betas, since that's always been their one trick pony
:yup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
As you mentioned, delta mildness actually fires me up sometimes. Come on, get passionate! Get loud! CAN Y'ALL JUST START YELLING OR SOMETHING SO THAT I GET A SENSE OF PERSONALITY? I FEEL SAD AND LONELY. From a Beta perspective it feels suffocating like all of the air of the room has been sucked out. Then you get me getting all awkward except you're fine in the blankness and I look super desperate. Just spool out some line, I'll swim to the bait. Tell me what you're thinking, what you're feeling. The Fi atmosphere does genuinely feel just as controlling as the Fe feels to you.
(I realize that you were looking to criticize the Beta mindset here, but I actually agree with some of your criticism)
I'm actually very conciliatory but I want my opponent to dig in and give me some of the opposing view. I don't want to feel set in my ways and I want you to match my level of argumentation so that we can hash it out. I'll go really in deep arguing my point and seem very involved in it and then afterwards smile, lean back and say "Thanks, that was fun! I like some of the points you made! And after all it didn't really matter much..." (I suspect this comes across as vaguely unsettling to Fi valuers). I back way up if I get a whiff of a sense that the other person is actually offended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogman
It also depends upon the subject. I'll behave much more opinionated about something abstract like my enjoyment of a book because it's fun to get intense, but with stuff that people are more sensitive about like politics, I'm very careful and spend a lot of time finding points of agreement between me and the other person. "I totally get what you mean about X, I agree, but...". Constant devil's advocate here. I like to fiddle with my creative Fe and play the part of the agreeable insider even if I fundamentally disagree with the other person because it helps them open up. And if they open up, they're likely to be a lot more honest and detailed about how they feel and maybe even a bit more conciliatory themselves, so I can slowly introduce my perspective and we can engage on that and I can learn something about how they think. I like to playfight, not actually hurt feelings.
Basically, conversation is performance for Betas. It's understood that you might play up your reaction to something and it's all in good fun as long as you communicate what you're really thinking too. I think Betas (especially beta NFs) are trying to reach out by digging their heels in the ground. They expect the other person to react to that and provide their own momentum so that you get two big boulders flying out at each other. When people just sort of... see that I'm mounting an argument and concede, it's really awkward. Remember, it's playfighting. The dogmatism, the intensity, etc. It's all play for us. I mean, on some level, it's genuine. It's shadowpuppetry. There's something genuine behind the show (I tend to get frustrated with Alphas when I assume there's a message to the games and there is none, think that's related to the Ne/Ni divide), but the presentation is playful. Augmented reality.
I think it might help your interactions with Betas if you verbally point out that they're being too hardcore for you (I realize you're an Alpha and not Delta but it could probably apply to anyone interacting with Betas). They might not have intended to come off as harsh as they did and, unless they're jerks, will probably explain to you what they were actually trying to say. When you think the Beta is being mean, we might simultaneously worry that we were boring or upset you in some way. Clearing up the cause helps a lot. If I know my Beta approach doesn't work with you, I'll redirect my conversational style to be more earnest and direct. I might have less fun but I'd rather have that than make someone feel hated.
stahp you're making me think all betas might not be bad
although I will say that inasmuch is Fi is ok being left alone and Fe has to mess with other people its crossing a line, and its a false equivalence to say the two feel the same to eachother, because one is not doing anything and the other is actively interfering with others. in those cases, I wish beta would just tap into some of that high powered yet oft ignored Fi and chill
Fe-Se mode enabledQuote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
you staph it you're a Fi-valuing type and you aren't acting like a hardass pussy
the only people left to make fun of are alphas and they don't understand insults
Fe-Se mode disabled
Rebooting...
Fi mode enabled
I'm glad something about that spoke to you! I was kind of worried that it'd come across as too positive on the Beta PoV/disrespectful of the Fi criticism angle and I'm happy to see that it didn't.
Hm, that makes sense. I think from the Fe perspective, all social interaction involves you imposing your "vibe" on someone else, and Fi feels like the "vibe of no vibe". It's a freedom of expression issue for Fe and it's a freedom of not having to express issue for Fi. Fi wants an environment where it doesn't have to be anything it's not and Fe wants an environment where it's allowed to try on different personas and play at being something else.Quote:
although I will say that inasmuch is Fi is ok being left alone and Fe has to mess with other people its crossing a line, and its a false equivalence to say the two feel the same to eachother, because one is not doing anything and the other is actively interfering with others. in those cases, I wish beta would just tap into some of that high powered yet oft ignored Fi and chill
Social relations are part of truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
Are you a fan of star trek?
Btw you vibe like my grandma.
do it in front of a mirror please :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Stellafera
Bertrand... get over yourself. You've been trying to get a rise out of me ever since, and I've mostly just ignored it and held it in, even though you were clearly being an asshole about it. That's why we had that big conflict, because I was so pissed about it. We can just call it a truce, and never bother each other again. The choice is yours.
Hate is a sentiment that has an outward target, it goes from you to them. Fear is the initial mechanism, from them to you, it's intrusive. So it's only natural that hate is the retaliation reaction, trying to intrude back. The latter includes all of the actions I've listed but it can go beyond that, hate has as many forms as fear because it depends on the hater's motivation and the hatee's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
The people you hate the most... are probably not in your quadra.
Simply because there is some kind of inherent understanding and common ground with people of your own quadra.
Even though you may sort of dislike them for non-socionics reasons, you can still get where they are coming from.
Having said that, the people you hate the most could be of any type.
And I've found that Fi leads in particular are the most likely type to hate someone from their own Quadra for personal Fi-related reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
I fear good things sometimes though--things I don't hate. I also feel like I hate some things I don't fear. I feel like the common cause to both these things is simple negative affect-- one motivating us in terms of alerting us to danger (fear) the other to act on it (hate). But I feel like hate presumes a moral judgement on top of fear that is "I am afraid of this and I shouldn't have to be"; which "fear = hate" reduces out of the equation, but which I think is a legitimate category. I feel like moral judgements are not just expressions of fear, but statements about certain phenomena that cause fear that have a legitimate basis (albeit not for everyone--some people reflexively hate whatever causes them fear), but I would say, at least in my case, I can separate fear from hate, especially in the case of fearing things I know to be good for me (this is the basis of courage--especially moral courage). In that way I feel like you can legitimately hate things (in the case of fear-producing things that also really are bad) and illegitimately hate things--i.e. moral cowardice--this takes the form of moralizing vice: i.e.: an anti war stance (hatred of war) for reasons of personal cowardice not actual principle
in other words, I feel like one must have an adversarial position toward ones own natural tendencies and the failure to do so constitutes both cowardice and a 1:1 correlation between fear and hate, but that is not the rule of the universe only the rule for weak people
in other words, cowardice is the attitude that one is justified in hating whatever causes them fear and this is what results in all sorts of moral failures (up to and including counter phobic violence)
I feel like it is a moral triumph above the norm to be able to separate hate and fear, and not just in the case of not-hating everything that causes fear, but also in learning to hate things that are seemingly innocuous, even comfortable, or security-producing (this is something I think Fe-Si types especially tend to struggle with--deathly obese families are a product of this failure, etc)
So I suppose my question is, must an Fe type seek out emotional involvement in others, is this more enneagram related, or is this an integral component of Fe? Would they be okay in emotionally neutral atmospheres, and 'let it be' without an impulse to change it? If it isnt, what is this desire to change temperature of the room, and why does Fe feel a need for emotions to be active in the atmosphere? It cant just be a simple case for fun, from what I have gathered the reason should be much deeper than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
Yes, that's how i see it as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danielle
Pretty much, I can't think of any real life SLE, IEI or LSI I've ever hated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chips and underwear
THIS.
Oh this again :DA:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
Yes, yes, yes :yup:Quote:
Originally Posted by unsuccessfull Alphamale
Now it makes total sense why we'll never agree on this issue ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
I definitely see how hate can and in many cases do, come from fear. But it's far from being the only source, hence why the "always" you use on your motto triggered me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
it's kind of two sides of the same coin. ime Fe-valuers are most comfortable in emotionally neutral atmospheres if the other people are Fe-valuers as well. so, it needs activity, but more in the sense of intentionality than literal, overt expression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
Keep in mind that I'm still learning a lot about socionics. It's easy for me to understand Fe as it works in myself, but hard for me to see how it works for Fe leads or with types on the Ne/Si axis.
At first blush, I'd define emotional awareness as more of a Fi thing. Understanding what people's feelings are and being able to articulate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
I dunno, I think I see some of that tendency in myself with Ti in the sloppy hidden agenda position. "So the math works like this (Te)? But that doesn't feel logical to me! It has to make sense to me for it to be right...".Quote:
An example of this would be saying you are feeling something is wrong, and not bothering to or listening to the logic of it, but feeling strongly that its wrong, so that is enough reason to make it wrong
That does seem to be a thing with Fi, yeah.Quote:
Fi has its 'own' logic to it, but its not logic in the sense of coherency of thought structure, it's more emotional coherency
https://familyfoundry.files.wordpres.../04/horton.gif
I can't answer for others, but for me, it's because it helps me communicate my :Ni:. I have to create a simulacrum of the mindset shaping my Ni in order for other people to get the same impression I did. And I want the same from other people so that they can put their own messaging out that I can interpret as well. Emotionally neutral atmospheres make me feel like I'm not understanding the full picture. I think ILIs use their :Te: for a similar purpose. They see where the ship rudder is pointed and they lay out the pertinent facts and relevant logic to the situation to prove it. I suspect one of my sisters is an ILI and she often asks me to provide her the logistical aspects of my stories because it helps her understand the situation better.Quote:
That would seemingly slant towards Fe, but this whole performance bit I don't understand and practically speaking, I'm unaware as to how relations would breakdown for me in this sense. I can project an image of someone who is Fe PoLR or devaluing into your example and see how that attitude would clash with them and cause friction but struggle to find examples of that in myself. So I suppose my question is, must an Fe type seek out emotional involvement in others, is this more enneagram related, or is this an integral component of Fe? Would they be okay in emotionally neutral atmospheres, and 'let it be' without an impulse to change it? If it isnt, what is this desire to change temperature of the room, and why does Fe feel a need for emotions to be active in the atmosphere? It cant just be a simple case for fun, from what I have gathered the reason should be much deeper than that.
Think that's why I use so many similes when I talk. I'm trying to draw comparisons of what I have in my head to something that other people can understand. I want people to understand me and I want to understand other people, and Fe helps me get there. So yeah, let's hang up the mistletoe and string the lights on a pine tree so that the family feels like it's Christmastime, so we can share a holiday together. Let's make everything pink and stuff on Valentine Day so that we all think a little bit about love. Watch the ball drop in Time's Square to ring in the excitement of a new year, play around with costumes on Halloween, feel a little guilty about our environmental impact on Earth Day. Whatever does the trick.
I'd be bothered by the beta-delta debate too. That kind of interaction would be more common between Beta STs and Delta NFs and it's also a function of emotional maturity. Understanding that different people have different conversational needs, etc.Quote:
I'm more concerned with Fe in the case of psychological damage - two betas arguing with each other wouldn't bother me, but a beta and a delta would (in the image Im projecting the delta would be damaged by that atmosphere, its more than just 'its not harmonious', but the fact that said person is being damaged in a way that will last past that interaction sicne a delta wouldnt be able to shrug off name calling, etc and intensity of heat exchange like a beta - and the beta would be scarred by the judgements of the delta), though I wonder if that has anything to do with Fe at all.
Not sure. I think Fe leads are more in the mindset that it's really good for us to all be on the same page rather than that it is useful. I agree that Fe creative I am inclined to describe the function in explicitly manipulative terms, which is probably not how other people see it.Quote:
The ethics you are describing sound more manipulative and flexible which would make sense for creative, so I wonder if Fe leading types would also feel the same way...
Can you elaborate what you mean by having more sources, which ones are there?Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyOne
Off the top of my head: Disgust due to deeply personal values being violated, betrayal of trust, chronicle disrespect, resentment due to unrequired feelings,callousness due to intense envy, disillusionment after a disappointment etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
Disgust is fear of being infringed on, experiencing betrayal is fear of being left alone, perceiving disrespect is fear of being put down, resentment is fear of not being appropriate, callousness is fear of feeling inferior and disadvantaged, disillusionment - yes, since sadness > fear in that case.Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyOne
Lol, none of the things you write about emotions like hate and disgust make much sense to me. Not saying they're wrong for you, but that I can't relate at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
But we've had some of this discussion before. I'm not very interested in hate. As I said in the past, if someone is behaving in ways that lead me toward hate--a waste of my energy and a twisted way of being--I disengage.
Disgust to me is a gut (visceral) reaction that tells me something is wrong, and the wrongness runs the gamut.
All this fear stuff I don't identify with. Of course I feel fear, but I don't see it converting into these other emotions. I do think that one emotion can mask another, but how those layers form is somewhat individual.
ETA: This article discusses brain imaging that shows hate runs on a distinct circuit from fear and anger and actually appears closer to love. The study seems fairly inconclusive except that it shows various emotional states as likely separate things.
Ditto why this thread exists in the first place mwahaha :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by golden
I feel like this way of thinking falls into the same camp as psychological egoism, which is just because all acts can be interpreted as selfish does not mean that that is actually the case, rather it is symptomatic of an overbroad conception of selfishness. I think your conception of fear is likewise functioning in a similar way--this is a systemic Ti issue, with what you call fear actually being something like "negative affect" in general, and you're working from the ground up with "fear" filling that role. True, it could be the case that you could interpret fear as being at root of all these things, but I think that entails a subtle and overbroad extension of fear in order to make it fill that role. Realize that fear has a specific definition and connotations for most people that differ from the meaning you have assigned it. if all you did was replace "fear" with negative affect I don't think anyone could really disagree with you, and in the sense that I automatically kind of do that in my head in order to better "get" your point I don't really disagree with you either, but you're never going to convince everyone "fear" is at the root of everything because fear has specifically been defined as having a separate and distinct domain from the get-goQuote:
Originally Posted by Chae
the part of fear that makes it also a part of everything else is not the whole measure amounting to "fear" but that negative affect that is common cause to fear and all the subsequent things you link it to
in other words, there is something in fear that is also in everything else you've linked it to, but there's also something more to fear that is not in some of those other things. I think a Te + Si understanding is making a link here of a kind of personal experience where you're feeling it first hand, but its getting hung up on how it is formulating its conclusions abstractly.
its basically nitpicking, from my point of view, but you should know its happening because otherwise you're going to be fruitlessly talking at people, not really with them
to make the comparison to egoism, the idea is every act confers with it some kind of perceived benefit, hence it has a reason for acting in that manner, but the consequence of calling every act inherently selfish explodes the notion of altriusm or selflessness in general, and here in the same way, every emotion we feel on the basis of something bad (potentially) happening has within in it the potential to cause fear or be fearful in some way--that is because the "badness" of the act is "bad" in virtue that we want to avoid or prevent it in some way--inasmuch as that is the case we can say we "fear" it, but fear is a more specific concept that reducing all negative emotion to fear has the consequence of making everyone essentially "living in fear" which is meaningless if that is the case, because people are not simply driven solely by fear and even if that were the case it would mess with our understanding of courage, and a whole host of other values... it would make moral thinking more or less impossible and it basically serves to reduce out all the difficulty in understanding the human condition; in a word its reductionist. it is appealing because it purports to teach us something, but i think it actually would lead to more ignorance in the long run. the idea is we can't just all be acting in fear, because there's a weird kind of determinism to that where we each have our factual circumstances and we're living out our fear in reaction to them, and human conflict is this kind of mechanistic interplay between avoidance of fear and limited resources and the whole thing, in consequence, removes out all the moral complexity to human interactions. you have to in some sense channel negative emotion apart from fear, even towards fear, to move forward sometimes. in other words, this entire discussion requires a negative response to fear, in essence "fear of fear" in your system to produce a system of morality where agency is really possible and if fear of fear is free will or agency or courage or morality the whole thing just devolves into an absurdity
all of these theories that collapse human experience into less sophisticated categories have this problem where they essentially turn on a kind of determinism at their very root. as soon as you make anything fear based or selfishness based or love based exclusively it makes humans into robots in its implications. I know you probably don't believe that, but that is its logical consequence. the only way to really capture humanity as a kind of unified tension of opposites, where fear is held at bay by something else and that things like disgust can arise from, say, courage and rather than fear, because disgust is the gut level response to evil that is not fear based by definition, whereas gut level response to many other threatening things, is fear. but to maintain the tension of opposites we have other words and concepts that cant be reduced out otherwise the system falls apart. just like no one "actually" believes everyone is selfish in their real life, except on the most superficial abstract level, I likewise don't think you don't think morality exists, but for those that perceive the long range implications of what you're saying here, its like you're saying something to that effect. so while it may be ok for you to think in these terms, because you ultimately believe something different than what you're objectively expressing, don't expect the fear theory to really catch on
Your point being?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
my point is just that fear is not the root of all hate, but I could see how someone might think thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Chae
but people are driven by fear, in general, to a far greater extent than they probably realize
lmfao
@Bertrand do you really think you're duals with Chae after this interaction? Your verbosity and high level of abstraction is super unlike SLI... you can change back to ILI imo.
by contrast look at how mclane condensed his conclusions to short info points here in a way that nobody else in this thread did, and how much Chae liked it: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1176461
IEE Te HA isn't interested in thinking about an Ni whirlwhind of info. it just wants to grab the key points and go.
bring on the SEEs
Even though I'm flattered by this statement, this does not exclude Bertrand from being SLI. We could simply be different subtypes; Si subtype SLI has the +Ni pathway strengthened (+Ni is in their DS). By contrast, Te subtype SLI has -Ni strengthened (role function), while also engaging in -Te demonstrative. This makes Te subtype SLI more synthetic in their thinking than Si subtype.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffer
you still think so even with the degree that he reaches with his thinking style? i guess i'm not excluded from being EII either from your POV?Quote:
Originally Posted by mclane
probability >>> possibility.
I also was conditioned by betas to not be "allowed" my thoughts unless they were thoroughly laid out in a Ti system and went so far as to study philosophy to try and understand the world in such a way, I think subconsciously, so I could explain it to people who could not accept me until I could (highly religious unhealthy IEI (maybe EIE) mother); either way Te had no place so I've made a habit of not explaining myself in that way, even though internally I think in precisely that wayQuote:
Originally Posted by mclane
it just comes out a lot, and its no wonder I've had trouble with duals whereas SEIs and stuff absolutely love me (but I don't really find them special, mean as that is)
I feel like my parents were subconsciously seeking and treating me as if I should be a xLE, and sometimes I put off that vibe because I adapted to that conditioning in some ways
i thought you said your dad was an SEI though? still, that sounds pretty crappy. they were seeking double the amount of Ti in that case. beta STs are a lot more concise, so if that balancing influence was around that wouldn't have turned into a problem like that most likely where they shifted their neediness to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
yes, nail on head. I had a lot of resentment towards my dad in precisely that way; before I even knew of socionics I always felt he should have been "more of a man." If he was ESTP I doubt we'd be here. in the end, maybe he did me a favor though. hes not a bad guy, my mom just completely dominated him and he never really stood up to her, even for his own kidsQuote:
Originally Posted by niffer
I had an uncle I looked up to as more of a father figure and I think he was EII, which isn't exactly manly but he had certain qualities I absolutely needed
lol, even EII is more manly than either of those types if they're both xEI. at least he wouldn't be a logics polr and he'd have more Te than them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
my parents are both Te ego and i did not respect them much as parents, but a lot of it was probably because of the relationship they were in (supervision). i looked up to my LIE-ESI grandparents as guardians instead.
yeah I know how that feels and it was weird my parents totally picked up on it too but there wasn't anything to be done about it... they kind of didn't like my uncle but probably didn't know why. I feel bad for them now, thinking about it, they were probably insecure about their own kid respecting this other guy and not themQuote:
Originally Posted by niffer
lmao, i know everyone finds SEEs hot but if you're wishing that out loud, that might be another indicator to double-check XDQuote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
your job isn't to worry about your parents' insecurities; it's to worry about growing up properly to be an independent and respectable person, and it seems like that you did. if anything they grew from the experience and it was good for them, and lucky them they had some kind of role model around for their kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
I like them both honestly, but it feels like IEE likes me more than SEE, but it might just be the particular people involvedQuote:
Originally Posted by niffer
yeah I agree, fuck emQuote:
Originally Posted by niffer
This does seem to be true for Betas, since they identify the most with their values and fight against others who oppose them. Gilly's post demonstrates this very well. (I would also say that intraquadra conflict most often occurs between an introvert and an extrovert, for all quadras.)
I don't think it is true for the other quadras though. Gammas (at least Gamma NTs) seem to hate Betas the most as well. With Si valuers it's more haphazard but the people who tend to create the most vehement reactions in general are usually types with high Se.
You seem to be confusing dislike with fear. You can dislike something or someone without being afraid of it, for example if it is irritating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
People hate each other mostly for political reasons. Put two groups of people together with differing political beliefs, and you'd be sure that there'd be fervent conflicts.
People may hate their identicals due to projecting the qualities that they don't like in themselves, as well as that they may notice the negative qualities that they don't like in themselves more in their identicals.
Anyway, this whole idea seems to go against the idea of Socionics inter-type relationships, BECAUSE they are supposed to be relative. Everyone is supposed to have more or less the same reactions with certain type relations.
Partly. Irritation is likely a very subtle threat already because it introduces an element of insecurity --> again, being afraid of things falling apart. It's a level below. But I see we can agree to disagree on this ;) :crispy:Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
As self-proclaimed misanthrope I'd say all but as solipsist most of all myself.
OK, not really although I think I have bit of latter in some way.
I can't believe I missed the follow up to my post (weirdly enough I didn't get the "Quote" message) but you win :pros:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
It's indeed a case of I'm-the-center-of-the-universe-and-anyone-who-dislikes-me-is-actually-afraid-of-me-because-I'm-so-badass-and-awesome mentality. They try to make it seem about things outside of the being itself by using "professional" language, but it's just a cover.
Yes, I can see it too. :Fi: Egos relate everything back to themselves, so it's only natural that they'll expect everyone else to feel like they do. I guess it also makes them feel better about themselves, so they don't feel like they're scared on their own :coffee:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
LIIs - Sometimes they can be hard to be around because they remind me of my own insecurities, though this doesn't lead to hate...
ILEs - Can be assholes, but usually not on purpose.
SFs - Too cute to hate.
I only hate people who give me a bad attitude and show me a general lack of respect, whatever those types might be. Often I will resist doing something for someone purely out of spite if I feel that aren't taking my interest into consideration and are just trying to strong-arm me into doing something for their own agenda. If instead the person is agreeable and treats me as his/her kin rather then some tool I can be quite generous in what I'm willing to do for them, regardless of their background or political beliefs.
This speaks volumes about your worldview.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
yep.Quote:
But I see we can agree to disagree on this ;) :crispy:
Likewise :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush