Beta & Aggression

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramas

Every person has his own idea of what aggression is. There's nice Betas and mean ones, just like with all the other quadras. Extroverted functions (IEs in Socionics terms) are more constant in their aggressions, and introverted functions are more extreme. Everyone is somehow aggressive. That's survival. There's nothing exceptionally aggressive about the Beta quadra.

---

To be aggressive is to exert force and dominate your environment. The force/coercion you apply need not be directly physical, it may also be of a mental or emotional nature (think bitchy or scheming behaviour). But at its essence, the will to create and enforce your own power and dominance is central to aggressiveness, and this is why it is associated with Se.

yeah that sounds nice, but on a psychological level what people perceive as aggression has to do with their own sensitivies. when typically "aggressive" people complain about this they don't want to put it on their own level or be perceived as weak, so they call it (the other) "passive aggressive" but it amounts to the same kind of thing, "this person is expanding in a way I find threatening." it all just hangs together in a relativistic relationship with the labels being surface points, I think that was aramas' point and I think he's right

yes Se valuing is consider aggressive as baseline, but the point of socionics is in some way to expose that as being only a stereotype

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

yeah that sounds nice, but on a psychological level what people perceive as aggression has to do with their own sensitivies. when typically "aggressive" people complain about this they don't want to put it on their own level or be perceived as weak, so they call it (the other) "passive aggressive" but it amounts to the same kind of thing, "this person is expanding in a way I find threatening." it all just hangs together in a relativistic relationship with the labels being surface points, I think that was aramas' point and I think he's right

yes Se valuing is consider aggressive as baseline, but the point of socionics is in some way to expose that as being only a stereotype

---

^ What he said, @Spermatozoa.

one can also think of aggression as "making the first move" or preference to seize the initiative. in that sense its kind of +Ni "bringing the future into the present." you see this in people like domr and other posters, and there is a kind of aggression to it but its only one possible meaning of aggression. in other words, such a thing is not perceived as "aggressive", by themselves usually, for example because it is considered normal. rather anyone who doesn't do this is perceived as passive or weak willed. if they could come to realize that it is in fact aggressive maybe they'd be more understanding why people don't like it and its not a weak v strong thing. for example the relativity reemerges in the form of judiciousness being viewed as "strong" (in judicious quadra forbearance is a sign of a strong will). singu was sorting of hitting on this obliequely in the thread about expecting people to stop you from paying, which is to say you can invert things, or they can swing both ways depending on perspective. he just goes about explaining it in his goofy way, because he's trying to at the same time reject the model

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramas

Every person has his own idea of what aggression is. There's nice Betas and mean ones, just like with all the other quadras. Everyone is somehow aggressive. That's survival. There's nothing exceptionally aggressive about the Beta quadra.

---

You see these "contradictions" in Socionics everywhere. Some Betas are nice, some Betas are mean. That pretty much describes every single human beings. Which means that it's describing nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

one can also think of aggression as "making the first move" or preference to seize the initiative. in that sense its kind of +Ni "bringing the future into the present." you see this in people like domr and other posters, and there is a kind of aggression to it but its only one possible meaning of aggression. in other words, such a thing is not perceived as "aggressive", by themselves usually, for example because it is considered normal. rather anyone who doesn't do this is perceived as passive or weak willed. if they could come to realize that it is in fact aggressive maybe they'd be more understanding why people don't like it and its not a weak v strong thing. for example the relativity reemerges in the form of judiciousness being viewed as "strong" (in judicious quadra forbearance is a sign of a strong will). singu was sorting of hitting on this obliequely in the thread about expecting people to stop you from paying, which is to say you can invert things, or they can swing both ways depending on perspective. he just goes about explaining it in his goofy way, because he's trying to at the same time reject the model

---

This would be your own subjectivist interpretation, which you are clueless to what actually goes on inside of people's heads, and what their motivations actually are.

Why your interpretation is so useless, is because there's simply no logic or rhyme and reason behind it. You don't really consider any alternatives, you just go with your "intuition" or "gut feelings", and simply assume that you are right with your own one-sided, singular interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singu

You see these "contradictions" in Socionics everywhere. Some Betas are nice, some Betas are mean. That pretty much describes every single human beings. Which means that it's describing nothing.



This would be your own subjectivist interpretation, which you are clueless to what actually goes on inside of people's heads, and what their motivations actually are.

Why your interpretation is so useless, is because there's simply no logic or rhyme and reason behind it. You don't really consider any alternatives, you just go with your "intuition" or "gut feelings", and simply assume that you are right with your own one-sided, singular interpretation.

---

Yeah Socionics has some problems, but that's because we're all seeing as through a glass, darkly. We get a glimpse sometimes through the trees of this amazing psychological reality, and while it's unprovable and irrational, it's still an exciting wonder to behold for those who have the powers of perception necessary to see it. No one's perfect, though, and we all make mistakes. I don't see what your point is, though. Why do you bother pointing out these issues?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramas

Yeah Socionics has some problems, but that's because we're all seeing as through a glass, darkly. We get a glimpse sometimes through the trees of this amazing psychological reality, and while it's unprovable and irrational, it's still an exciting wonder to behold for those who have the powers of perception necessary to see it.

---

Like with anything, this is all just a guess. And what makes a guess better than the other guesses, is for one, it is logical, it is rational, it is consistent with the other established theories, it is criticized, tested and experimented, and then it's improved. No one is somehow more "perceptive" than the others, and somehow they have these magical x-ray visions where they can somehow peer into another's brain. If they claim to do that, then they're just fooling you - or even themselves.

It's very easy to fool yourself into thinking that you're just very "perceptive" and can look into people's souls or brains. They get all excited in these orgasmic masturbations and circlejerking because they think that they have suddenly discovered this superpower of being able to psychologically "read" into people - and think that they're very good at it and that they're very accurate with their abilities. This is essentially what Bertrand is doing - or fooling himself into thinking that he has this ability and that he's good at it. It takes a little more effort than that to actually understand the real psychology behind people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramas

Why do you bother pointing out these issues?

---

Because it's wrong, duh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singu

Like with anything, this is all just a guess. And what makes a guess better than the other guesses, is for one, it is logical, it is rational, it is consistent with the other established theories, it is criticized, tested and experimented, and then it's improved. No one is somehow more "perceptive" than the others, and somehow they have these magical x-ray visions where they can somehow peer into another's brain. If they claim to do that, then they're just fooling you - or even themselves.

It's very easy to fool yourself into thinking that you're just very "perceptive" and can look into people's souls or brains. They get all excited in these orgasmic masturbations and circlejerking because they think that they have suddenly discovered this superpower of being able to psychologically "read" into people - and think that they're very good at it and that they're very accurate with their abilities. This is essentially what Bertrand is doing - or fooling himself into thinking that he has this ability and that he's good at it. It takes a little more effort than that to actually understand the real psychology behind people.



Because it's wrong, duh.

---

I think you're the wrong one lol. I'll leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramas

I think you're the wrong one lol. I'll leave it at that.

---

Lol, and you just said that Socionics has problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singu

You see these "contradictions" in Socionics everywhere. Some Betas are nice, some Betas are mean. That pretty much describes every single human beings. Which means that it's describing nothing.

---

It may not completely describe exactly whether someone will always be nice or mean but it can describe the brand of niceness or meanness you can expect from a type.

A mean IEI will be mean a in much different way then a mean SLE for example. A mean SLE will be your stereotypical aggressive prick who trash talks and constantly disrupts others. Meanwhile a malicious IEI looking to hurt others might do something like utilizing their demonstrative Fi to first gain someone's favor and trust, then suddenly become cold and leave them in a torturing second-guess state regarding the relationship.

There also can be nice IEIs and SLEs but again each will have there own way in which they do it. A nice SLE will be your badass bro/chick who invites others to do equally badass things with them and has an abundance of good humor. A nice IEI will spread feelings of intimacy and wholeness and inspire others with their realizations.

So in other words there are things socionics actually does describe. Think of socionics as more of explaining people's state of minds rather then people themselves.

Pretty sure socionics reinforces the stereotypes mainly, not exposes them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy

A mean IEI will be mean a in much different way then a mean SLE for example. A mean SLE will be your stereotypical aggressive prick who trash talks and constantly disrupts others. Meanwhile a malicious IEI looking to hurt others might do something like utilizing their demonstrative Fi to first gain someone's favor and trust, then suddenly become cold and leave them in a torturing second-guess state regarding the relationship.

There also can be nice IEIs and SLEs but again each will have there own way in which they do it. A nice SLE will be your badass bro/chick who invites others to do equally badass things with them and has an abundance of good humor. A nice IEI will spread feelings of intimacy and wholeness and inspire others with their realizations.

---

That pretty much describes any possible group of people. Which means that this umbrella term "Beta" becomes a pointless distinction. What makes "Beta" separate from anything else?

:love: hi dingu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rebelondeck

It depends how one defines aggression. Ejs tend to be the ones that can be reactive taking things personally and then quickly get into someone's face. Ips are even more reactive but because they're more defensive, they may not appear as aggressive but they certainly can dole out retribution. Eps can be very aggressive to achieve their goals but it isn't as personal for them although they often make a public display of it and like to be praised for it. Ijs' aggression is not obvious, happening in more of a subversive, planned way. Aggression is human nature and not reserved for Beta's; even the most passive with the right reason will demonstrate it. Fe-types tend to boil more on relational issues and usually are in sync with the mood in the room......:content:

a.k.a. I/O

---

I don't default to subversive, planned stuff though I will if I need to, sure. But I think it still ends up obvious eventually (that's the end goal). What I default to is 1) instrumental aggression to achieve goals or 2) quick reactivity and directly dealing with the issue if one comes up. I think the only one I don't do is the Ip version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

I don't default to subversive, planned stuff though I will if I need to, sure. But I think it still ends up obvious eventually (that's the end goal). What I default to is 1) instrumental aggression to achieve goals or 2) quick reactivity and directly dealing with the issue if one comes up. I think the only one I don't do is the Ip version.

---

Under stress, Ijs can get somewhat Ej-ish and lose it but these outbursts usually cause a modicum of embarrassment after realizing that they lost control. Perhaps a LSI-Se could appear somewhat Ep-ish and glory in it a little but most LSI seem to defer to under-the-table means to achieve that end goal; open aggression is not good for business.......:content:

a.k.a. I/O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rebelondeck

Under stress, Ijs can get somewhat Ej-ish and lose it but these outbursts usually cause a modicum of embarrassment after realizing that they lost control. Perhaps a LSI-Se could appear somewhat Ep-ish and glory in it a little but most LSI seem to defer to under-the-table means to achieve that end goal; open aggression is not good for business.......:content:

a.k.a. I/O

---

Oh if we are talking outright business then yes I tend to be more patient and careful in certain cases, using those plans though I still want to ensure I get where I want to get.

As for stress, oh maybe. You could say I was not dealt an easy life / I'm not making it easy for myself with my goals if that counts as stress?? I hardly ever truly lose control though. With my default amount of reactiveness I still feel in control. In many situations I just never saw a need to try and fully control the part of the expressions (of anger) that I do let show, so I just let that part be, and I still feel in control fine, while I take action with varying amounts of the direct/instrumental aggression. I basically do have a general idea on how much I'm showing and it tends to be just as much as I allowed myself to. If it was more than what I condone is when I'd not feel in control anymore but that's extremely rare by default.

To complete the picture, in quite some situations I do default to the Ij version with not showing much at all, because I see it as the wrong approach and expression in those situations, them being very formal usually where a more restrained approach is what fits and the reactiveness or any display of anger would be out of place there. (Or when it's simply that a more planned out approach is needed due to certain risks etc.) Tbh... sometimes even in some of these types of situations I do end up weighing what I have to lose if I do break this rule of formality and if I decide it's not much at risk I do break it. :content:

All in all, in the cases where I allow myself to show the reactiveness, I don't see the need to repress the expression along with the bit of aggressiveness because... hm I don't see how it would be a problem really. I'm not trying to be all nice and liked by everyone all the time. And I generally don't believe that it causes harm in any way in those cases.

Do you subscribe to DCNH? I'm D there (the Ej subtype). So that may play into this.

And hahah about glory in Ep-ish stuff: closer friends IRL *all* wanted to see me as SLE, when I asked them about my type. Not that many friends tbh but yeah, it's funny I guess. :shifty: OK that was more MBTI ESTP and my best friend (an EIE) did agree LSI-Se fit me over SLE-Ti in Socionics when I showed her some descriptions of these subtypes. But until this comparison she would pick SLE for me in Socionics too. Her very simple reasoning was: the SLE(-Ti?) girl she used to know would be barely hiding an Se base "animal" that she saw in the SLE-Ti description while she doesn't think I have that in the same way. :lol:

I think quite potential EIE:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Maria_%C3%85kerblom

Maria Åkerblom (September 14, 1898 – February 25, 1981) was the leader of the Finnish Åkerblom Movement, an evangelical movement sometimes called a "cult". She had also served some time in prison.^[1] Her movement deemed her a prophet and began in the 1920s.^[2] Maria Åkerblom is characterized by Aarni Voipio as a "sleeping preacher", that is, a person who peaches in a state of trance.^[3]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007

I think quite potential EIE:

---

Can you describe to me how this kind of er, "prophecy" differs from the Ni lead version of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Can you describe to me how this kind of er, "prophecy" differs from the Ni lead version of it?

---

There is a documentary about her but it is not in English. She pretty much used the crowds and was very particular what kind of composition the crowd had. If it didn't match then the person was thrown out.
She also whipped people whilst she was riding a horse and pretty much tried to control people with her will although in the end she used ethical ways to do it. Like made witnesses to tell judge what had happened.
Later in life she became a business woman although manipulation and blackmailing played the most significant part in it. Her image was very important.

Anyways, EIE's are dreamers for the doomsday and something else. I think IEI's usually just tend to hang on positives.

Extremely crooked case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007

There is a documentary about her but it is not in English. She pretty much used the crowds and was very particular what kind of composition the crowd had. If it didn't match then the person was thrown out.

---

What did "using" the crowds look like? Bc the rest is just Ni vision stuff. If the "used the crowds" was Fe, ok, but can you tell me more?

Quote:

---

She also whipped people whilst she was riding a horse and pretty much tried to control people with her will although in the end she used ethical ways to do it. Like made witnesses to tell judge what had happened.

---

Am still just seeing Ni.

Quote:

---

Later in life she became a business woman although manipulation and blackmailing played the most significant part in it. Her image was very important.

---

Maybe this has Fe with the outwards image thing, ok.

Quote:

---

Anyways, EIE's are dreamers for the doomsday and something else. I think IEI's usually just tend to hang on positives.

Extremely crooked case.

---

It's true IEIs tend to try and show positive stuff more.

I kind of think IEI's as being bit more idealized when it comes to companion. In terms of peaceful relations she was not so good. When IEI back stabs I'd imagine it being as a surprise. Her story is pretty much being on a drift from one place to another and manipulating the social sphere (and many people at once).

Anyways, I'd imagine her being some sort Creative sub where the differences get bit blurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007

I kind of think IEI's as being bit more idealized when it comes to companion. In terms of peaceful relations she was not so good. When IEI back stabs I'd imagine it being as a surprise. Her story is pretty much being on a drift from one place to another and manipulating the social sphere (and many people at once).

---

Manipulate like how?

Drift? :o

Quote:

---

Anyways, I'd imagine her being some sort Creative sub where the differences get bit blurred.

---

Yeah many differences do get blurred there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

yeah that sounds nice, but on a psychological level what people perceive as aggression has to do with their own sensitivies. when typically "aggressive" people complain about this they don't want to put it on their own level or be perceived as weak, so they call it (the other) "passive aggressive" but it amounts to the same kind of thing, "this person is expanding in a way I find threatening." it all just hangs together in a relativistic relationship with the labels being surface points, I think that was aramas' point and I think he's right

---

You are rambling as usual...

The distinction between aggressive and passive-aggressive behaviour is easy to determine; the former involves an attempt at direct coercion while the latter is indirect. I agree with you that in both cases one's intent (to affect a change) is the same, but the outcomes of a passive approach are inherently less predictable because they require favourable psychological terrain to manipulate, and of course, people are whimsical, changeable creatures who don't obey a set of fixed rules when they interact (hence the flaw of any social theory, and the need for it to be flexible). Thus a passive approach is often inefficient and it may be viewed as cowardly by more overtly powerful people (who possess a lot of agency).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

yes Se valuing is consider aggressive as baseline, but the point of socionics is in some way to expose that as being only a stereotype

---

If Socionics has some implicit moral agenda then its ability to predict personality traits will go down by default.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spermatozoa

You are rambling as usual...

The distinction between aggressive and passive-aggressive behaviour is easy to determine; the former involves an attempt at direct coercion while the latter is indirect. I agree with you that in both cases one's intent (to affect a change) is the same, but the outcomes of a passive approach are inherently less predictable because they require favourable psychological terrain to manipulate, and of course, people are whimsical, changeable creatures who don't obey a set of fixed rules when they interact (hence the flaw of any social theory, and the need for it to be flexible). Thus a passive approach is often inefficient and it may be viewed as cowardly by more overtly powerful people (who possess a lot of agency).

---

The problem with indirect aggression is that it can really trip up people if executed cleverly, so it's not like it's never ever effective in some cases at least, and the worst is that it does not get judged like open aggression does, simply because it's invisible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Manipulate like how?

Drift? :o

---

:Fe: taking over the people's emotional mind with her visions. :shrug: Feeding the answers she knew would help. I think there are studies that (and it is used even in marketing) people start to reinforce each other's behavior. So one person can ruin the whole presentation but one can also use certain people as a decoy. Probably group dynamic is very apparent to certain types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Drift? :o

---

She had very little stability in her life. Going after something new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007

:Fe: taking over the people's emotional mind with her visions. :shrug:

---

You mean they were emotionally charged visions and not just simply visionary?

Quote:

---

Feeding the answers she knew would help. I think there are studies that (and it is used even in marketing) people start to reinforce each other's behavior. So one person can ruin the whole presentation but one can also use certain people as a decoy. Probably group dynamic is very apparent to certain types.

She had very little stability in her life. Going after something new.

---

Lol god I so don't have a groupthink mind :lol:

I’m pretty sure i have never met another SLE or LSI. Which is weird cause im pretty sure im beta nf. I like the idea of another person confirming the attraction as its explained in the romantic values of the quadra but have some issues with the idea of domination and submission. But again, i think most of my romantic experience is with caregivers and infantiles. The later really can get on my nerves. The caregivers are cool but i dunno.. i feel sort of empty around them. I think a lot of my friends are aggressive but i dislike them trying to dominate and control me. Maybe im just dissatisfied with people though. Still, pretty sure i have never met an actual SLE or LSI.

The combined IQ of Betas is inferior to that of a squirrel undergoing gender reassignment surgery.

"Me have club. Me beat you."
"Ooooh :love:"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenCoyote

I’m pretty sure i have never met another SLE or LSI. Which is weird cause im pretty sure im beta nf. I like the idea of another person confirming the attraction as its explained in the romantic values of the quadra but have some issues with the idea of domination and submission. But again, i think most of my romantic experience is with caregivers and infantiles. The later really can get on my nerves. The caregivers are cool but i dunno.. i feel sort of empty around them. I think a lot of my friends are aggressive but i dislike them trying to dominate and control me. Maybe im just dissatisfied with people though. Still, pretty sure i have never met an actual SLE or LSI.

---

Given that there are only 16 types, and you meet hundreds of people throughout your lifetime, it's highly unlikely you have never met an LSI or SLE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spermatozoa

The combined IQ of Betas is inferior to that of a squirrel undergoing gender reassignment surgery.

"Me have club. Me beat you."
"Ooooh :love:"

---

Someone got bullied by the "jocks" in highschool...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avebury

Given that there are only 16 types, and you meet hundreds of people throughout your lifetime, it's highly unlikely you have never met an LSI or SLE.

---

I’ve thought about that actually, so it may just be my preconcieved idea thats preventing me from seeing them. Its possible all my friends are the type. Most of my friends are pretty unruly abd can all be aggressive. They love to laugh but other people have mentioned they all seem kind of aggressive and there is no chance of getting them to follow any rules. I’ve tried, they all just do what they want no matter what. Someone mentioned that im like the easygoing calm center in the shitshow ha ha.

Honestly as long as my friends dont get caught im good. I really would like to avoid the courtroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avebury

Given that there are only 16 types, and you meet hundreds of people throughout your lifetime, it's highly unlikely you have never met an LSI or SLE.

---

Possibly
In terms of meeting them in depth, I think all types are actually rare. Depth and close relationships can be hard to find you know. I think the user was referring to meeting them in depth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenCoyote

Honestly as long as my friends dont get caught im good. I really would like to avoid the courtroom.

---

You can always save a little corner for yourself, so if you need to drift away rom the trouble, you will weather the storm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spermatozoa

The combined IQ of Betas is inferior to that of a squirrel undergoing gender reassignment surgery.

---

Congrats. You're a pussy and a nerd. :lol:

That squirrel must have high IQ. The communication skills must be quite high for a squirrel.