How would an Fi person react?

I feel that I overreacted to something my LSE dad said, and I am wondering if there is a Fi/Fe divide in reacting to what he said. I’m genuinely curious about the socionics of this, and am not just looking for reassurance etc.

“You are behind schedule on dating - If you had siblings, they could share the responsibility of having grandchildren, but unfortunately since you are an only child it is your responsibility. You’re a member of this family. You can’t just think about yourself.”

Anyway, I don’t think my dad’s views make him a bad person - just retrograde - but would an Fi person have had a less intense reaction? How would you have countered it? To me, it is not ok to make someone feel bad about themselves in this way. But he didn’t seem like he was trying to harm - he was even in a good mood.

This might be the asshole part of being a Te-dom with 1D Fi.

I've said the same thing to my SLI son. He does not respond well to it. I'm not saying it to be mean, I'm just saying it because I feel that the only reason I'm on this planet is to propagate my genes, and he's not holding up a 4.5 billion-year-old tradition.

This may make me appear to be a totally unfeeling asshole, but it is one of my fundamental values and it takes precedence over everything else. Why the hell am I stacking up money if not to advantage my offspring?

He's showing no interest in having kids (or getting married, for that matter), and I'm strongly considering starting another family. One with lots of kids.

I can't imagine someone saying that with a straight face. This isn't a viewpoint I have much experience with, so my initial reaction would be to laugh, and then be completely befuddled when I realized they were serious. I might have said some smart-ass comment like, "Well, I guess you should have had more kids then, shirking your responsibility by stopping at one just isn't acceptable. Why didn't you think about the good of the family?" But, I don't know how a Fi person would react.

I wouldn't have a problem with it.

In fact, I think it. I think it for my relatives.

That is because I do want to start my own family someday though, for me, not for others. I mean, I think about how it affects others close to me but if I truly chose to die an old boy out of my own accord, I'd say it is my choice, and I would hold myself accountable to any damage this causes to my relation with relatives who don't agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

I can't imagine someone saying that with a straight face. This isn't a viewpoint I have much experience with, so my initial reaction would be to laugh, and then be completely befuddled when I realized they were serious. I might have said some smart-ass comment like, "Well, I guess you should have had more kids then, shirking your responsibility by stopping at one just isn't acceptable. Why didn't you think about the good of the family?" But, I don't know how a Fi person would react.

---

@squark, my SLI-ex didn't want kids at first. Not any. I had to tell her I was going to have kids, and I hoped that they'd be with her but they didn't have to be, to get her to have even one. Our son is now the light of her life, but he's doing the same thing she did.
I can't tell you how much this pisses me off. I realize now that my choice of partners was flawed. It was based on the fact that I knew she'd make a good mother, but didn't include whether she'd want to be a mother or not.

So, yes. My fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

I can't imagine someone saying that with a straight face. This isn't a viewpoint I have much experience with, so my initial reaction would be to laugh, and then be completely befuddled when I realized they were serious. I might have said some smart-ass comment like, "Well, I guess you should have had more kids then, shirking your responsibility by stopping at one just isn't acceptable. Why didn't you think about the good of the family?" But, I don't know how a Fi person would react.

---

Ha yeah. My parents immigrated and when they were financially stable enough to have a second child my mom had a disease and became infertile.

The part in italics I would never say to anyone.

Ip-types tend to be defensively reactive while Ejs offensively reactive, and both find it hard to disconnect. Eps and Ijs tend to be more detached so after a verbal offense, they tend to metaphorically say "I'll get back to you on that" but this doesn't mean that an insult is any less hurtful to them; they'll simply exact retribution later. Both Ips and Ejs usually want immediate closure and their impatience to get it often results in demonstrative confrontations. You have to ask yourself if it's better to get it over with immediately or to let it fester for a long time......:content:

a.k.a. I/O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

This might be the asshole part of being a Te-dom with 1D Fi.

I've said the same thing to my SLI son. He does not respond well to it. I'm not saying it to be mean, I'm just saying it because I feel that the only reason I'm on this planet is to propagate my genes, and he's not holding up a 4.5 billion-year-old tradition.

This may make me appear to be a totally unfeeling asshole, but it is one of my fundamental values and it takes precedence over everything else. Why the hell am I stacking up money if not to advantage my offspring?

He's showing no interest in having kids (or getting married, for that matter), and I'm strongly considering starting another family. One with lots of kids.

---

its funny because I feel like my parents have a similar point of view, but at the same time they continually talk and act as if they will in under no circumstances ever help me with their money, and its precisely that doubt about their willingness to get behind me, should I ever need it (which has pervaded their entire upbringing strategy from day 1), that makes me distance myself from them to the point where I don't care at all about their continual effort to accumulate an inheritance. the point for me is, if we don't have a mutually supportive relationship now, its like they're living in a future that neither of us will experience together. and if we never come together, at any point, but rather pass eachother in time, through this future exchange, which is never solidified in any moment, but continually disjoined, then there is no actual relationship... it has the character of them playing the relationship like a stock option, wanting a return now at the expense of the present, all in the name of a future, that because of the failure of the parent child relationship, may never come to pass or be anything like it could be. essentially they undermine their kids self esteem and well being and then say, when it no longer matters (when the child is past mid life and the parent is dead) "here is your reward." its basically killed everything valuable in exchange for a token that lacks all intrinsic value. from my point of view, they're entirely indistinguishable from a %100 selfish person with no kids, because the "gift" transfers only and precisely at the moment they stop caring about it, i.e.: when they're dead. and yet the relationship is seen as somehow supposed to be here and now, and yet it is no relationship, because there is no mutual support. it is a sleight of hand, one generation perpetuates on another, further compounded by the general plundering of the economy (although not all are guilty of this of course). i would rather inheritance did not exist at all, and parents genuinely cared for their children in the present, then filter it through some kind of abstract medium, because how are children, when they need to understand care the most, i.e.: when they don't understand economic concepts, and are young, when their personality forms, supposed to recognize the game their parents are playing and appreciate it (for whatever its worth, if anything)... it undermines the parent/child relationship right at the root, and the inheritance doesn't heal the scars caused at that early stage. it in fact causes them and it bleeds over not into just the parent child relationship but all their relationships, potentially killing them right then and there, although the effect on the body is not seen until it manifests in mental illness and suicide years later. and then people wonder why depression is at an all time high, why "kids these days" are so weak, its because we exchanged something real for a scam and you can't run a life on that without some kind of blowback proportional to the misdeed. the strength of those children will be to right this wrong cultural orientation toward life through hook or by crook, and suicide is voting with your life

replacing the messed up relationship by simply creating new humans is also perverse. it treats them as interchangeable instrumentalities, which is why there is no relationship to begin with. you talk about children's duties to you, but only attach your duties to them at the moment it no longer matters; this disjunction in time is basically a scam. if you want to stop piling up money, then stop, but don't unilateraly foist this sort of arrangement on kids who had no choice in being born and who their parents were. you may have really messed them up and your solution is to somehow simply repeat the same process expecting a different outcome and the collateral be damned, and for what? the truly valuable thing, which is the humans, seems to be overlooked entirely in the perpetuation of this meaningless scheme for its own sake. I am not trying to be high and mighty about this, I am profoundly sad that humanity does this to itself, because no one wins, despite how even the "power holders" regard themselves, they are only repressing that side of them that wants this (genuine loving relations) more than anything too

I get along very well with my son. He's said he doesn't expect to inherit anything, but he's his mother's only child and my parent's only heir, so he will inherit, regardless of anything I do. He basically doesn't have to work. This also pisses me off, but he's well-liked by his friends and is unfailingly helpful to family members, so he's turned out pretty well, all things considered. Better than my own track record in this regard, certainly.

I can clearly see that I'm motivated by wanting offspring to have children themselves, and I can see how unfair that is to my son. For the most part, I don't push my agenda, but it still bothers me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

This might be the asshole part of being a Te-dom with 1D Fi.

I've said the same thing to my SLI son. He does not respond well to it. I'm not saying it to be mean, I'm just saying it because I feel that the only reason I'm on this planet is to propagate my genes, and he's not holding up a 4.5 billion-year-old tradition.

This may make me appear to be a totally unfeeling asshole, but it is one of my fundamental values and it takes precedence over everything else. Why the hell am I stacking up money if not to advantage my offspring?

He's showing no interest in having kids (or getting married, for that matter), and I'm strongly considering starting another family. One with lots of kids.

---

Even if life deals me a bad hand of cards and I'm depressed, I don't feel it is up to someone else to fulfill my wishes. I put in a lot of effort to take care of myself, and I often feel guilty about pressuring others.

Nor do I agree that it is selfish to not wish to have children, although I've always wanted children. I was depressed for many years and am just feeling better, and I was heartbroken for a while too, so it felt odd to be told that I'm "behind." However that part's not such a big deal.

IMO kids can't fulfill parents' needs b/c they are a wildcard. Parents can't always fulfill children's needs either. You provide them with what you can and hope that they have the capabilities, afterwards, to shape for themselves the life that they want.

My Te solution to you and any young women in a similar position is: freeze your eggs and keep your options open.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

I get along very well with my son. He's said he doesn't expect to inherit anything, but he's his mother's only child and my parent's only heir, so he will inherit, regardless of anything I do. He basically doesn't have to work. This also pisses me off, but he's well-liked by his friends and is unfailingly helpful to family members, so he's turned out pretty well, all things considered. Better than my own track record in this regard, certainly.

I can clearly see that I'm motivated by wanting offspring to have children themselves, and I can see how unfair that is to my son. For the most part, I don't push my agenda, but it still bothers me.

---

this is funny because this is precisely what my parents say too "oh people love you and you're so smart and have achieved all these different things, that means the way we've acted was right. and coincidentally why we can disregard any criticism originating from you" basically alls well that ends well, without even perceiving whats going on under the surface. I've realized that the truth of Jung is that the intractable nature and harm of certain worldviews is precisely why humans aren't allowed to live forever. they absolutely must be replaced. but its also why violence is not really the answer, because life has a built in solution. in essence people cannot be convinced of anything, but they can be examples for future generations on how not to be. this is why people think if we could somehow devise some scientific scheme to extend life indefinitely it would be utopia, but it would actually result in hell on earth, because time is a necessary function of morality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

......... the only reason I'm on this planet is to propagate my genes, and he's not holding up a 4.5 billion-year-old tradition.......

---

Cognitive ability of males is inherited entirely from their mothers and males only pass their mother's abilities to their daughters. In a sense, males have little to do with adding to the collective on which types are built; they merely provide a vehicle for genetic diversification of female intellect - a life support systems for a penis. Therefore, having another family will serve to pass on another woman's processing capability.....:content:

a.k.a. I/O

Reality check comeback:

The nature human of human is psychopathic. Do we really have the right to put more babies (and therefore psychos) on this earth?
How about other species? I doubt we are more valuable than those? To think about it life itself seems quite sadomasochistic loop. Do we really need that?

And what have you done? Just look at in front of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rebelondeck

Cognitive ability of males is inherited entirely from their mothers and males only pass their mother's abilities to their daughters. In a sense, males have little to do with adding to the collective on which types are built; they merely provide a vehicle for genetic diversification of female intellect - a life support systems for a penis. Therefore, having another family will serve to pass on another woman's processing capability.....:content:

a.k.a. I/O

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywi.../#32a0e6c46502

My children are not my property. They belong to themselves, and my only concern if they don’t have kids would be whether they’ll regret not having them. Not something I’d be in a better position than them to judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

its funny because I feel like my parents have a similar point of view, but at the same time they continually talk and act as if they will in under no circumstances ever help me with their money, and its precisely that doubt about their willingness to get behind me, should I ever need it (which has pervaded their entire upbringing strategy from day 1), that makes me distance myself from them to the point where I don't care at all about their continual effort to accumulate an inheritance. the point for me is, if we don't have a mutually supportive relationship now, its like they're living in a future that neither of us will experience together. and if we never come together, at any point, but rather pass eachother in time, through this future exchange, which is never solidified in any moment, but continually disjoined, then there is no actual relationship... it has the character of them playing the relationship like a stock option, wanting a return now at the expense of the present, all in the name of a future, that because of the failure of the parent child relationship, may never come to pass or be anything like it could be. essentially they undermine their kids self esteem and well being and then say, when it no longer matters (when the child is past mid life and the parent is dead) "here is your reward." its basically killed everything valuable in exchange for a token that lacks all intrinsic value. from my point of view, they're entirely indistinguishable from a %100 selfish person with no kids, because the "gift" transfers only and precisely at the moment they stop caring about it, i.e.: when they're dead. and yet the relationship is seen as somehow supposed to be here and now, and yet it is no relationship, because there is no mutual support. it is a sleight of hand, one generation perpetuates on another, further compounded by the general plundering of the economy (although not all are guilty of this of course). i would rather inheritance did not exist at all, and parents genuinely cared for their children in the present, then filter it through some kind of abstract medium, because how are children, when they need to understand care the most, i.e.: when they don't understand economic concepts, and are young, when their personality forms, supposed to recognize the game their parents are playing and appreciate it (for whatever its worth, if anything)... it undermines the parent/child relationship right at the root, and the inheritance doesn't heal the scars caused at that early stage. it in fact causes them and it bleeds over not into just the parent child relationship but all their relationships, potentially killing them right then and there, although the effect on the body is not seen until it manifests in mental illness and suicide years later. and then people wonder why depression is at an all time high, why "kids these days" are so weak, its because we exchanged something real for a scam and you can't run a life on that without some kind of blowback proportional to the misdeed. the strength of those children will be to right this wrong cultural orientation toward life through hook or by crook, and suicide is voting with your life
oo

---

I feel for you man, that's a fucked up and a shitty cross to bare. Living outside of the present, breathing, moment, especially with your adult children, is living inside the hologram. Life on the holodeck.

yeah its like a mirage of a family, bunch of souless people gathered around the table, hoping if the camera is rolling they all look right

My reaction to a LSE Dad who says this: "umm, I do what I want to do with my life...the exact same thing you do with yours. How about we check the planks in our own eyes first. And not disrespect me by making assumptions about my dating life." ect ect.

PS parents and old people suck, like I;ve been saying this here for years. They don't change and are often miserable. You just have to roll your eyes and bit your tongue..I got to do the same thing.

I vote parents go on trippy mushroom trips and take some Molly/MDMA while they are at it in order to overcome their entrenched perceptions and narrations about reality and the given present natures of their children at this moment in time.

but like, that will never like, happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

yeah its like a mirage of a family, bunch of souless people gathered around the table, hoping if the camera is rolling they all look right

---

wow, well I don;t mean it like that as in reality TV, more along the lines of viewing through a window of perception that may or may not truly reflect the living nature of what they see, only what their minds tell them they see vis a vi memories, patterns, habits, wounds, rights, demands, projections. You can't properly greet reality by chatting over top of it, if you catch my drift.

yeah I bought some shroom spores, although I haven't planted them yet. in the perfect world I could sit down with my parents, have a heart to heart, and go on a drug trip with them and then maybe we could all for once in our lives really talk to eachother rather than through some brick wall of economic "logic", which isn't even all that sound or informed to begin with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by golden

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywi.../#32a0e6c46502

---

darn.....and I was hoping that @Adam Strange would not have seen it.......:content:

a.k.a. I/O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

yeah I bought some shroom spores, although I haven't planted them yet. in the perfect world I could sit down with my parents, have a heart to heart, and go on a drug trip with them and then maybe we could all for once in our lives really talk to eachother rather than through some brick wall of economic "logic", which isn't even all that sound or informed to begin with

---

:thumbsup:

Well I don't know if you are joking or not, but its not really about the vehicle (shrooms), its just about getting to whats real through all the bs..like the mind is not your friend, especially with years of history: so many back and forth reactions that happen instantaneously, so much unconscious role playing on top. How do you sort that out without some structure like a counsellor, or how do you do it on your own, eating the inevitable sacrifice while still remaining true to yourself?

Look I'm not saying recreational drugs are the answer by any means but one thing about that particular drug is that there is no hiding. You are as naked and therefore as vulnerable as is possible for a human soul to be. At any rate..all you can really hope for is to be a better man then your parents were. Doesn't always work out, lord I fucking know it, but tons of grace happens in that little spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rebelondeck

darn.....and I was hoping that @Adam Strange would not have seen it.......:content:

a.k.a. I/O

---

But apart from a Forbes article, on the face of it a statement like males get all their cog ability from their mothers sounds wrong. Inheritance is more complex than that, and cognition is extremely complex.

Returned to post this semi-impassioned manifesto:

I can imagine that it’s very different to be in the thick of it, but I always thought I'd try my best to provide the support my child needs to be happy, even if their preferences are extremely different from my own. And if I can’t manage that, I want them to know that they have value no matter what.

Love necessitates letting someone else be their true selves.

Also, love is wishing the best for someone even if it means that person is going against your desires. In some cases (like failed romantic relationship), it necessitates letting go.

Also I've been told that I won't have energy to raise a kid if I'm "too old" when I have them, but I really want to be in a good emotional position. I want my kid to grow up in a happy family. :content:

:thumbsup:

I can't imagine answering as though my own father were saying this because it's so entirely out of the scope of my family's values that I can't put myself exactly in your shoes. My initial reaction is amused incredulity, followed by indignant rage when I actually think of it being said to me seriously. When it comes to guilt trips from my mother in general - who used them a lot - my reaction was apologetic placating on the surface while remaining firm about my decisions, followed by distancing over time as it became emotionally wearying. This probably isn't useful because we ended up estranged for years before she died and I'm guessing that's not the outcome you're looking for. She was IEI though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemontrees

I feel that I overreacted to something my LSE dad said, and I am wondering if there is a Fi/Fe divide in reacting to what he said. I’m genuinely curious about the socionics of this, and am not just looking for reassurance etc.

“You are behind schedule on dating - If you had siblings, they could share the responsibility of having grandchildren, but unfortunately since you are an only child it is your responsibility. You’re a member of this family. You can’t just think about yourself.”

Anyway, I don’t think my dad’s views make him a bad person - just retrograde - but would an Fi person have had a less intense reaction? How would you have countered it? To me, it is not ok to make someone feel bad about themselves in this way. But he didn’t seem like he was trying to harm - he was even in a good mood.

---

I file LSE's complaints into "noise" -- if he wanted more grandkids, he could have created more kids. He didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

I file LSE's complaints into "noise" -- if he wanted more grandkids, he could have created more kids. He didn't.

---

It takes two to tango.

Lol. But I'm working on it.

Tell him "sure, if you carry them for me".

Honestly, I can't stand people who say that.

Anyway, I'm the "baby" in my generation, and the next one was started before I even started highschool. No one can bother me with wanting to have grand children, they have some already.
My father is a ESI, I think, and I can't imagine him saying such.
Not like I see anyone enough to tell me that anyway.

I know someone whose father was bothering her to go back to school or get a job while she was struggling with mental health and a lot of stuff (heavy stuff), she found ways to dodge the questions and make him understand the subject was not going to be discussed. She called this "choosing our fights". They still have a (sort of) relationship, which is actually better than when she was growing up.
She is not living with him, so this makes things easier.
She actually went back to school and didn't even tell him.

As strange as it sounds, he was doing what any male species (or female, but his is just a male POV) would do... that is, to propagate his genes. Propagating our genes is a Serious Business, we take it very seriously and it's what drives as living beings (why else would we have sex?). He was simply doing what he was "programmed" to do by his DNA, although he may not even have been aware or conscious of it.

From this POV, I think saying "You’re a member of this family. You can’t just think about yourself." is just guilt-tripping and somewhat of hypocrisy. What he was really saying was this: "I want you to propagate my genes as dictated by my 'selfish genes', which just wants to replicate itself". However, perhaps he also has a point. Being "family" means you all share genes. If your family prospers, then it means that your family's genes have been successful. Therefore, I wouldn't blame him too much.

His behavior can easily be explained by evolutionary biology.

There have been lots of people who didn't want to have children. Children are a many-year commitment and tie you down and require lots of your resources, which you can't then use for yourself. Since they are a huge drawback from a resources standpoint, it is not surprising that individuals often choose not to have children. (I know that's not the only reason, but it's a big one.)

Evolution has produced a lot of behavioral traits which result in children. Sex is fun. People are short-sighted. We tend to imitate our parents' behavior who, by definition, had children. All of these things, and others, tend to produce children. If there were no mechanisms of this sort, we wouldn't be having this discussion, or any other.

I think it's every individual's right to decide whether or not to have kids, but my personal choice is to want to have kids. It's a conscious decision, backed up by action.
When our child was born, my ex-wife didn't want to quit her job to raise him, so I quit mine to do it. Money where your mouth is.

I mean, he has a point. To me, the only thing wrong with it is that he seems entitled to your behavior. But that could just be a consequence of the frame.

Interestingly, this might explain our patriarchal nature, and the common tendency of males wanting to control the sexual reproduction of females. They do it so that they can propagate their genes.

Of course, biology is not destiny, and we are against controlling women because we find it morally abhorrent and it goes against our value of respecting individual choice and rights.

But we should also be somewhat grateful that humans didn't develop even more gruesome strategies for propagating genes - infanticide. Some other animals, such as alpha male lions, go to another pack of lions and drive away or kill the alpha male of that group, and then goes to murder every one of the cubs of the other alpha males, so that only his genes would survive (also so that without any cubs, the lioness would be in the mood to breed again). This would be devastating for any females. Of course, infanticide isn't totally out of the question for humans as well, it can sometimes happen, but normally we find such a thing horrific and completely morally shocking and appalling.

It was such a shocking discovery that many scientists refused to believe such a thing could happen until fairly recently.

a lot of these are just artificial schemes people subject others to like some kind of dog run, thinking this will somehow benefit them, but life is never swindled so easily. people declare victory all the time but its always "the lady doth protest too much"

I do like the idea of my son having kids because of the joy and company it would bring me in older age, but trying to conceptualize it as a responsibility on his part or as something I'm owed is confusing because it's not the way my family has ever talked about it and the sanctity of a person's right to choose otherwise feels self evident. Maybe I'll see things differently if I'm really lonely ten years from now. The concept of 'legacy' in and of itself falls flat for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ouronis

I mean, he has a point. To me, the only thing wrong with it is that he seems entitled to your behavior. But that could just be a consequence of the frame.

---

I don't think I manipulated the frame at all. If you feel that he is right that is still up to you.

Pregnancy is pretty personal, so I felt that there was a gender element to it as well. It made me feel uncomfortable that someone could demand the use of my womb for their purposes. I know there is a cultural expectation so I understand where that it coming from but I still felt pretty hurt, and claustrophobic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singu

Interestingly, this might explain our patriarchal nature, and the common tendency of males wanting to control the sexual reproduction of females. They do it so that they can propagate their genes.

Of course, biology is not destiny, and we are against controlling women because we find it morally abhorrent and it goes against our value of respecting individual choice and rights.

But we should also be somewhat grateful that humans didn't develop even more gruesome strategies for propagating genes - infanticide. Some other animals, such as alpha male lions, go to another pack of lions and drive away or kill the alpha male of that group, and then goes to murder every one of the cubs of the other alpha males, so that only his genes would survive (also so that without any cubs, the lioness would be in the mood to breed again). This would be devastating for any females. Of course, infanticide isn't totally out of the question for humans as well, it can sometimes happen, but normally we find such a thing horrific and completely morally shocking and appalling.

It was such a shocking discovery that many scientists refused to believe such a thing could happen until fairly recently.

---

An organism is just a DNA molecule's way of making another DNA molecule. How that is accomplished transcends any "morality" that might belong to the organism.

Lol. That does not alter the way an organism might feel about it, though.

it matters in at least 3 ways, 1) if a society adopts that point of view it becomes sick with nihilism and can adopt dangerous idealogies as a counter position, resulting in war, and eventual self injury or anihilation, 2) the individual suffers from a general sense of lack of well being, because of so called diseases of affluence 3) morality can be seen as a form of social immune system that isolates people who act certian ways, preventing them from reproducing, or denying them access to certain "resources" that would otherwise be available to them. on the whole these factors do make morality relevant to DNA molecules. in other words, you can be a rich scumbag, who is scraping the bottom of the barrel despite driving a nice car. it all depends on how fooled people are by your accoutrements

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemontrees

I don't think I manipulated the frame at all. If you feel that he is right that is still up to you.

Pregnancy is pretty personal, so I felt that there was a gender element to it as well. It made me feel uncomfortable that someone could demand the use of my womb for their purposes. I know there is a cultural expectation so I understand where that it coming from but I still felt pretty hurt, and claustrophobic.

---

He's right in the sense that he seems to have a real human need and that you could provide for it. If you don't think you should be required to provide for it, it's your choice, of course. With the frame bit, I don't know the exact way he meant what he said, so it's hard for me to say if he really is entitled to making your choice for you or not.

I guess I'm not inclined to see this as a cultural thing, but as a human weakness/emotional need sort of thing. Things like this are a major component of people's happiness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ouronis

He's right in the sense that he seems to have a real human need and that you could provide for it. If you don't think you should be required to provide for it, it's your choice, of course. With the frame bit, I don't know the exact way he meant what he said, so it's hard for me to say if he really is entitled to making your choice for you or not.

I guess I'm not inclined to see this as a cultural thing, but as a human weakness/emotional need sort of thing. Things like this are a major component of people's happiness.

---

You're guilting me but this is what I get for posting on an internet forum. I accept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ouronis

He's right in the sense that he seems to have a real human need and that you could provide for it. If you don't think you should be required to provide for it, it's your choice, of course. With the frame bit, I don't know the exact way he meant what he said, so it's hard for me to say if he really is entitled to making your choice for you or not.

I guess I'm not inclined to see this as a cultural thing, but as a human weakness/emotional need sort of thing. Things like this are a major component of people's happiness.

---

Actually no, why is it always someone else's emotions that matter?

I have so much guilt already that for many years I was in and out of suicidal. A lot of that was exacerbated by my parents telling me that I was the greatest source of suffering in their lives (literally), and me knowing that it was true, although all I really did was have a non-lucrative job and not call them. When I was a kid, my mom who had her own pressures was violent and guilting, I'd frequently go to bed with bruises all over, and once I had welts and pus that came out of my wounds. My dad never stopped her, he said that he wanted a quiet, peaceful home and that we were disturbing that. I am not perfect but I have tried, and for a long stretch I was barely functional, let alone providing for my father's "real human need."

I am fighting myself to not downward spiral to the place where I hated myself so much that I frequently thought about killing myself. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemontrees

You're guilting me but this is what I get for posting on an internet forum. I accept.

---

Hey, just ignore the guy. He wants something, you want something, but your wants take precedence when dealing with your own life. He has to deal with the fact that his rights stop where your nose begins. Or even a bit sooner. It's all about having and enforcing boundaries.

I know that this can be difficult. My own LSE mother wanted me to be a professor, since she was a grade-school teacher. I never did convince her that my choices in life were my affair.

I remember when I had some spare time on my hands and approached the local college to see if they wanted me to teach a course in an area where I have some expertise. They said Yes, if enough students signed up for the course.
I told my parents about this when I visited them, and I was amazed to find that they were suddenly proud of me. I mean, WTF? I had been out-earning them for years and that got me no respect. I was married with a family and a house and that got me no respect. This random side job made them proud. It kind of pissed me off.

It was just another step in the long path that eventually led me to the realization that I was never going to get their approval, so there was no point in trying.

@lemontrees, it sounds like you had it worse than I did. My upbringing was similar, my mother was physically violent and my father did nothing to stop her. I often thought of suicide, but I realized that that wouldn't hurt them that much.
Where I had it better was that they never explicitly said I was the bane of their lives. My mother saved that for my sisters.

I can easily understand why you have problems with your parents. My LII sister has cut off all contact with ours, and she's much, much better for it.

The sad thing is, neither of my sisters have children. I think they were subconsciously afraid that they would treat their kids the same way that they were treated. I know them both pretty well, and I feel that they would both have made great mothers. For one thing, they know exactly what not to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

@lemontrees, it sounds like you had it worse than I did. My upbringing was similar, my mother was physically violent and my father did nothing to stop her. I often thought of suicide, but I realized that that wouldn't hurt them that much.
Where I had it better was that they never explicitly said I was the bane of their lives. My mother saved that for my sisters.

I can easily understand why you have problems with your parents. My LII sister has cut off all contact with ours, and she's much, much better for it.

---

:hug: x 1000

Thank you.

Ha. I guess I'm not cut out for posting personal stuff on the internet after all, and have learned my lesson. :content:

lemontrees, you are a good person and you deserve to be treated that way. If someone can't meet that standard, then they don't deserve your attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

An organism is just a DNA molecule's way of making another DNA molecule. How that is accomplished transcends any "morality" that might belong to the organism.

Lol. That does not alter the way an organism might feel about it, though.

---

I think morality does affect our behavior. In fact, morality is exactly about doing the opposite of what our genes dictate us to do, such as abstaining from sex or fasting.

So the DNA created a vehicle that made it possible to have morality (such as consciousness and complex thoughts), but morality is an unintended side effect of that vehicle. Genes can create something that was not initially what was intended to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az1swBFXogA

The only problem I would have with the quote in the OP is that it sounds collectivistic. "Family first" type thing. Other than that, I can understand concern that a parent would have for a child that doesn't seem to be getting married and having children, since that is something that makes alot of people happy, but this should be done out of concern for the child's happiness not "group needs". I can't condone the fact that they are asking you to sacrifice your individual freedom for "the family".

grownups are children. our parents are abused children themselves. they matured physically but the abuse has not been processed, so it's a bubble that they are riding and we are therefore riding our own.

<3 lemontrees, I am sorry you have been abused. you are strong and don't quit. most people on this forum have had it rough, so it's hard to get your answers here, especially when it comes to family matters and related expectations.


have you ever discussed the abuse with your father or to agree upon a narrative with him i.e. your mother has been abusive but he never acknowledged that? make it clear that the goal is not to guilt-trip him but that it always helps to make things clearer for the sake of *~future generations~*. It is unlikely that you will agree in one sitting as these things take too much time to sink in and be fully processed. At least you will have presented something clear-headed instead of P2P (pain-to-pain). Actually, it is hugely likely that your dad carries pain from his past. Did he even want to marry your mum or did your mum even want to marry your dad? Not saying that these are things you need to bring up as I do not know your father's attitude. I do believe there is such thing as happiness but it rarely comes from a mindset of ''I've done this right so I feel good and I am now happy because I can stay in my bubble even longer''. Not saying that it is feasible to help them take a trip down the memory lane and stop the dysfunction. You will need help with that.

Part of my own narrative (and to empower myself) is that I am more privileged compared to my mum and dad. They did not have the internet and were not inquisitive enough to understand what they can change when it comes to family dynamics. Both of them took their thoughts at face value and thought they were doing good to their children. IMO, whatever can create space for fear must be avoided (Having our own binary thinking and maxims here and there can help, especially for people like us who've ended up being doormats/codependents for most of our lives). Our parents did not avoid this. Instead, they believed they were handing over valuable wisdom.

edit: i mean shame, not fear. or maybe fear of shame?

Hey lemon ^^

oddly enough I can understand your dad's concerns and I can see a good deal of love in it, but no doubt, if I were in your same situation I'd really be bothered and could even lash out if my dad were too serious about it all... but I wonder, hasn't he ever expressed those same sentiments before? It looks like those sort of ideas that an overly controlling/old-fashioned parent would instill in his/her only child when they're still young... but IDK.

I often have the same kind of concerns about myself, and the thought of my dad being left without any nephews really saddens me, because of the joy they could bring into an old man's life... but yeah, it would suck if HE had to say it.

Anyway, if you can manage to have a serious convo with your dad you should explain him your motivations, your worries for the well being of your kid, and you know, fertile years are not a rule, in my country women have kids very late, even around 40, and Idk if you know, but the older the mum is the healthier the embryos come out because there's more selection.

Your dad is just an asshole blaming you for his own failed aspirations. If he wanted to have grandchildren, he would have to get at least 4 children himself. If he could not do it like he could not afford it, he must deal with and don't blame others for it which is really dumb.

I have Fi but I don't see how your reaction is wrong or weird or anything. Like just reading that I was like "Is this person serious?" and if they are what do they expect, you get knocked up by the next guy you see just to appease their need for grandchildren? Please. Like to force someone to do something as personal as dating is ridiculous, this isn't like saying you need to find a job to take care of yourself, this is ultimately your choice and you can choose to not have kids for all you want. This sounds like an objective way at looking at something very personal and it just feels weird, like a robot talking about love, it just seems inappropriate. This is a more personal than objective zone. Next he's gonna tell you how to have sex for optimal insemination, like wtf lol.

But someone said they would laugh or something and I agree with that person, because this seems ridiculous, your are "behind" like this is a race or something. My attitude would be like get out of my face with that nonsense. Me having kids is a priveledge, not a requirement.

All you need to do is be an EII, and his words and actions will make perfect sense to you.

I honestly don't understand how this sort of thing has ever solved any kind of problems. So why do people keep dogmatically believing in the "theory" of duality?

@lemontrees your parents don’t deserve you.

Have kids someday if you want to and never let them see them. Best revenge. Besides, will they make better grandparents than they were parents?

<3 <3 <3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singu

All you need to do is be an EII, and his words and actions will make perfect sense to you.

I honestly don't understand how this sort of thing has ever solved any kind of problems. So why do people keep dogmatically believing in the "theory" of duality?

---

I don't think that's the case, what kind of person would be ok with what he said?

As far as your reaction being exaggerated I would try to not judge yourself, if you feel genuinely hurt then that is valid.

I don't know if you would feel up to speaking about your feelings honestly with him, if you could tolerate whatever his response is. If so I would probably try to state that you felt hurt/pressured/intruded on etc by his comments and expectations, that you feel these topics are very personal and they are your private choices to make, and that you understand he would like grandchildren but you would appreciate him not pressuring you on the topic any more. Then he has an opportunity to listen and respect you.
If you can't bring yourself to do this that's ok. Then if he ignores and brings it up again I would say clearly but blandly I don't want to talk about it. Just say it like it's about something meaningless. If it continues again I would change subject, get busy etc but NOT react emotionally which only rewards him for prodding, just go "grey rock" as they say and pretend it means nothing to you. He will give up if you do this consistently.
Privately I would try to develop a strong self-esteem and sense of your own beliefs and self-love so that his critical tone and comments are offset with something louder within you. Your life and choices are yours and you will have to face the consequences of them, no matter what he says.
You probably do this stuff already but that's what I would do.

I know that "you are a member of this family" sentence. You are and you also are a member of the human family don't forget there are people who will love you for exactly who you are, kids or no kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Pixel

I don't think that's the case, what kind of person would be ok with what he said?

---

Of course that's not the case, but Socionics is saying that's the case, if we were to take the idea of duality seriously.

How could Socionics possibly explain his behavior? Are you supposed to say, well since I'm his conflictor, I'll never understand him and he'll always be an ass to me, but to his dual, everything will simply make perfect sense?

What could possibly be gained by saying that it's due to his Te or Fi valuing or whatever? It has explained absolutely nothing. And yet his behavior could be perfectly explained from the view of evolutionary biology (among other things). The explanation is enlightening and it makes us understand him and his behavior better.

And I'm pretty sure you don't need to be his dual to understand his POV from evolutionary biology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singu

Of course that's not the case, but Socionics is saying that's the case, if we were to take the idea of duality seriously.

How could Socionics possibly explain his behavior? Are you supposed to say, well since I'm his conflictor, I'll never understand him and he'll always be an ass to me, but to his dual, everything will simply make perfect sense?

What could possibly be gained by saying that it's due to his Te or Fi valuing or whatever? It has explained absolutely nothing. And yet his behavior could be perfectly explained from the view of evolutionary biology (among other things). The explanation is enlightening and it makes us understand him and his behavior better.

---

I think what @Adam Strange said is probably correct. His Te making an objective statement and his 1D fi not seeing how that hurts someone. This seems to explain it to me. His dual would probably see this behavior and try to correct him on it, saying it's not "right" to say that or whatever. Not that his dual would be perfectly fine with the statement, but his dual being Fi 4D would provide Fi correction to his harsh Te/Fi 1D nature, and potientially ( due to socionics dual theory) his suggestive Fi would receive the correction well. But who knows, the guy still made an asshole statement, so, I mean, it can all be explained as either he's an asshole, wants his genes to survive like you said, or he has little Fi and can't clearly see what's wrong with saying that to someone, or a mixture of all 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Pixel

I think what @Adam Strange said is probably correct. His Te making an objective statement and his 1D fi not seeing how that hurts someone. This seems to explain it to me.

---

We already know that he has said something in an offensive way. That has explained absolutely nothing, you have offered no new information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Pixel

His dual would probably see this behavior and try to correct him on it, saying it's not "right" to say that or whatever. Not that his dual would be perfectly fine with the statement, but his dual being Fi 4D would provide Fi correction to his harsh Te/Fi 1D nature, and potientially (due to socionics dual theory) his suggestive Fi would receive the correction well. But who knows, the guy still made an asshole statement, so, I mean, it can all be explained as either he's an asshole, wants his genes to survive like you said, or he has little Fi and can't clearly see what's wrong with saying that to someone, or a mixture of all 3.

---

Take an explanation from the evolutionary biology point of view. It doesn't matter how "offensive" he was being, nor does it matter how offended you were by what he said. The explanation could be understood by virtually anyone who understands the theory of evolution. That's because the explanation is actually objective.

Obviously, people would likely be less offended by what he said, if you could see where he was coming from. That has been enlightened by the explanation from evolutionary biology. Being offended has nothing to do with the fact that someone is his conflictor or not.

Did he say what he said, because he's an LSE? No, he was just doing what any typical male species would do, under his circumstance. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he's an LSE.

It's cute how easily conflict can arise between duals ^^

but yeah, I can see behind his intentions too, I think in a pretty similar way... 'neway, it would be beyond my level of tolerance to hear that coming from someone else, and that's due to culture and upbringing, since I've never heard such a suggestion before and the world around me doesn't think like that... but in other parts of the world, or just not too long ago, that was actually a norm, quite unsurprisingly

There's something very paradoxical about Socionics. "The more I understand him, the more I become offended by him, because it becomes more likely that he's my conflictor!".

But obviously, understanding would imply being more enlightened, which would make you less offended by the fact that you are understanding things better. You don't get offended, if you could understand.

Which would imply that there's actually no understanding being furthered under Socionics.

What was actually happening was that you were introspecting the fact that you were feeling offended by this person, not that you have discovered some sort of an objective interpersonal relational law.

Which is another paradox. "Certain relationships will always conflict" is an impossibility. If you could discover why the relationship is conflicting, then you will also discover a way to not conflict, because you understand why the relationship is conflicting. This is sort of the paradoxical nature of human consciousness, and the fact that we can consciously choose to change things.

in general there are norms: normative functions check creative ones... creative ventures some risk, norm decides whether its down, sometimes the creativity is enough to get the normative one "on the same page" in a way they wouldn't have thought of themselves (and into some fun)... 1d functions require special skill to compensate for, because technically there is no bringing them up to the normative level. the interaction between 1d and 4d functions has a high degree of individuality, this is why sometimes relations can be very much interfered with by 3rd parties, especially beurocratic instutitions. they want to impose a normative structure on the interplay, viewing everything through a rigid form of "propriety" not realizing what seems outlandish and even criminal to them may be exactly what is needed. this is where the "duals sometimes look like they're fighting but they're really not" thing comes from. a good example of duality was ww2 america and japan (macarthur and hirohito, at least). a lot of the brutality comes from Se valuing, when viewed from outside seems utterly unconscionable and cause in of itself for rejecting duality as "real", since the theory goes "this cannot be right"--this is where Jung comes back into the picture, where he says the evil resides in us on a very deep level

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singu

We already know that he has said something in an offensive way. That has explained absolutely nothing, you have offered no new information.



Take an explanation from the evolutionary biology point of view. It doesn't matter how "offensive" he was being, nor does it matter how offended you were by what he said. The explanation could be understood by virtually anyone who understands the theory of evolution. That's because the explanation is actually objective.

Obviously, people would likely be less offended by what he said, if you could see where he was coming from. That has been enlightened by the explanation from evolutionary biology. Being offended has nothing to do with the fact that someone is his conflictor or not.

Did he say what he said, because he's an LSE? No, he was just doing what any typical male species would do, under his circumstance. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he's an LSE.

---

I don't know who said they were conflictors or anything like that and I definitely didn't say because she was offended they were conflictors. I don't think because he's LSE he said it, I think a XXTX type is more likely to say that than an XXFX type for sure. Under his circumstances it might be common to think that, but not actually say that and definitely not in the way he said it. That's a very T way of saying what he said, and I think acting like it's not is just looking away from something that seems obvious.

And yea people want their genes to survive I get that, still the statement is offensive even if I understand that. This topic isn't asking whether what he said was offensive or not, it's asking how someone would react. I think if you look you can find the socionics in there eve if other factors are at play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Pixel

I don't know who said they were conflictors or anything like that and I definitely didn't say because she was offended they were conflictors. I don't think because he's LSE he said it, I think a XXTX type is more likely to say that than an XXFX type for sure. Under his circumstances it might be common to think that, but not actually say that and definitely not in the way he said it. That's a very T way of saying what he said, and I think acting like it's not is just looking away from something that seems obvious.

And yea people want their genes to survive I get that, still the statement is offensive even if I understand that. This topic isn't asking whether what he said was offensive or not, it's asking how someone would react. I think if you look you can find the socionics in there eve if other factors are at play.

---

My point is, it all depends on understanding his intent.

If you understood the theory of evolution, then you would be less offended by what he said, because you would see where he was coming from. It's like you don't get "offended" by a dog barking, because you know that's what dogs do, perhaps it's just trying to protect its owner or something, so you don't take it personally. But if you were ignorant of dog behavior, then perhaps you would be offended. And if a dog barks at you, you don't say that dogs are your "conflictor", or even that particular dog is one. You don't say, well you and dogs just weren't meant to get along.

So why would understanding him better, make you more offended? If you could understand why a relationship conflicts, then you would also understand how the relationship does not conflict. So why would understanding the conflicting nature of relationships, not give you any knowledge for the relationship to not conflict?

The only answer to that is, it's because you didn't actually find the real reason for the relationship conflicting.

I feel like you are addressing some parallel argument or something, because this isn't anything I said really. Perhaps some argument you had with someone who automatically assumes anybody they get offended by is their conflictor. Not the case for me so....yea.

I understand what you are saying, my issue is I understand the man's intentions but I also understand why what he said could be taken offensively. It completely overlooks the emotional involvement in dating and shoots directly to child rearing, as if this was some simple task that his daughter needs to complete (regardless of her well being, regardless of her personal choice.) This can be offensive to treat someone as if they are a means to an end, a goal yet to have been met, an object or objective so to speak. What would have been less offensive his to express is desire to have grandchildren and further his family without the time requirement placed on his daughter, and her freedom to choose, even if he wants her choice to be his own. Support to having children is needed in this scenario, not demand. But yes I can see how any father who had one child would want that child to have grandchildren since that's their only shot at furthering their family another generation.

This statement is a simple case of too much of a T response on a F topic. To me it seems that simple really. "Get knocked up already so the family can continue." Completely leaves out the emotional labor/stress/involvement that comes with dating and finding a trustworthy partner to have kids with. That is why it's offensive (hurting is more of a correct term), regardless of his intentions. This is no different from just visiting a sperm bank.

EDIT: I just realized maybe you are saying this isn't an Fe/Fi problem.

@lemontrees If he demanded such “family values” to be upheld by you, where was he in fulfilling his share of that before as a father who should have been protecting his loved ones from abuse? From even an Fi point of view, I’m sure it’d be pure hypocrisy.

Even unhealthy LSEs usually subconsciously are seeking Fi atonement, so they are essentially waiting for their environment to berate them even if on the surface they’re acting like assholes and smiling doing it. You need to be their little pseudo-caretaker and teach them how to treat you when they’re like this.

One of the reasons I came back was just to say this. You’re special and I’m sorry you had to go through all that for all those years :hug: And you may not feel like it always but you’re much stronger than those who haven’t gone through such adversity. There is no excuse for what you went through and for the emotions your family is stlll putting you through now, not being an immigrant family or anything else. Knowing to an extent coming from an immigrant family myself, LSE “tiger mom” etc. — that’s more a copout than anything else when they play that card. Enjoy your life now and it’s beautiful and inspiring to see you seem unperturbed by your own abuse and know you can raise a happy and healthy family yourself when the time is right :) It’s also nice to see so much positive support coming on this thread. A nice change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

Even unhealthy LSEs usually subconsciously are seeking Fi atonement, so they are essentially waiting for their environment to berate them even if on the surface they’re acting like assholes and smiling doing it.

---

All types seek for the _positive_ support in the suggestive region - consciously and unconsciously. Also people do not act intentionally just "like assholes" (it only seems :) ), as people act for better, while "bad" is the side effects or happens accidentally. So the seeking to be berated is no what happens, as people act with the thinking they behave "good".
LSE seek the info about what they may do better in Fi, but not in the painful format. It should be done softly. In other case LSE will close to you his weak Fi and will not care about your opinion. Suggestive function needs tender relation so the info was accepted, as people protect this weak and important region against alien shit.

I didn’t know there was a soft way to tell someone how much of an asshole they’re being. Guess that’s why I’m not EII but IEI. :lol:

Edit: There have been plenty of good things in my life, I was in a bad mood the other night and over-focused on depressive episodes.

@xerx I watched that video before, guy seems like such a tool. :)

Thanks @ooo. That helps me remember that people are really scared of loneliness in old age. I forgot b/c my own fantasy is of reading, and writing my thoughts down into long essays - lol.

@kalinoche :hug: You’re right, I don’t think they get emotional needs met in the marriage so there’s a craving to connect elsewhere. What you said is part of my narrative too. As for the non-P2P talk - I’m scared of it (!), I think I’m afraid that if I lose the right to resent them I suddenly have to be a much better daughter, and plus my mom is scared of having straightforward talks too (E2), so I don’t want to result in guilting her into pleasing me. I want to be a little bit more present while also displaying firm boundaries. But, good reminder that I can say small things without having to say everything all at once.

@golden <3 <3 <3

They are a lot more sweet these days, I think they wouldn’t hurt someone if you were just spending time w/ them casually. (Maybe?)

@Guillaine Thank you for your support.

@aster Thanks for your sweet message. It helps to know that you didn’t have a strong reaction to the original quote, b/c it confirms for me that my dad wasn’t trying to be hurtful. Yes, he has relatives overseas with a very different relationship to their families so he feels it’s a reasonable expectation.

@niffer <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 No, irl my big problem is not always showing up in personal relationships. So my posts were to remind myself as much as anyone of how to be a decent future potential mom. It’s good to remember though that there are definitely people who would have protected their kids in the same situation. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

...you're right, it's a bit hypocritical

I'll give my dad an adopted baby and let him take care of it.

Then I'll tell him,

I just had casual sex with one random guy. That's our baby. Please take care of it.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20150116041222

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemontrees

I feel that I overreacted to something my LSE dad said, and I am wondering if there is a Fi/Fe divide in reacting to what he said. I’m genuinely curious about the socionics of this, and am not just looking for reassurance etc.

“You are behind schedule on dating - If you had siblings, they could share the responsibility of having grandchildren, but unfortunately since you are an only child it is your responsibility. You’re a member of this family. You can’t just think about yourself.”

Anyway, I don’t think my dad’s views make him a bad person - just retrograde - but would an Fi person have had a less intense reaction? How would you have countered it? To me, it is not ok to make someone feel bad about themselves in this way. But he didn’t seem like he was trying to harm - he was even in a good mood.

---

This is just awful. Your offended reaction is just natural. Don't forget the LSE needs EII to set them straight on being insensitive. Its an EII strong spot and his weak one. Only an EII has the knowledge and understanding of a LSE to pick the right timing and the right way to tell them, I really think.

You can't likely find a way to explain to LSE that they have been insensitive and tactless and then have them understand and say, "Oh, I see, you are right, so sorry" because when they said it they we "just stating the truth" and how can anyone argue with that? Then they will just repeat their insensitive rubbish, which you sure don't want to hear again.

But you should briefly and curtly express your disapproval - "That is grossly inappropriate and unkind!" and walk away, de-gracing him of your presence, also not giving him a chance to say anything back, because there is NOTHING he can say. And be prepared to deprive him of the blessing of your presence ANY time he tries to bring up that topic again. He'll learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemontrees

Returned to post this semi-impassioned manifesto:

I can imagine that it’s very different to be in the thick of it, but I always thought I'd try my best to provide the support my child needs to be happy, even if their preferences are extremely different from my own. And if I can’t manage that, I want them to know that they have value no matter what.

Love necessitates letting someone else be their true selves.

Also, love is wishing the best for someone even if it means that person is going against your desires. In some cases (like failed romantic relationship), it necessitates letting go.

---

I love this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemontrees

Also I've been told that I won't have energy to raise a kid if I'm "too old" when I have them, but I really want to be in a good emotional position. I want my kid to grow up in a happy family. :content:

---

You will have the energy when its the right time. And being blessed in marriage with the right man gives you a lot of energy. I wish that for you. : )

Thanks @Eliza Thompson - I don't think he was trying to be unkind, so I would feel uncomfortable giving that reaction

~~

Tangent/closing:

Esp in recent years, my parents have tried hard on my behalf - there have been happy memories too. Important to remember the love that is there. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemontrees

I feel that I overreacted to something my LSE dad said, and I am wondering if there is a Fi/Fe divide in reacting to what he said. I’m genuinely curious about the socionics of this, and am not just looking for reassurance etc.

“You are behind schedule on dating - If you had siblings, they could share the responsibility of having grandchildren, but unfortunately since you are an only child it is your responsibility. You’re a member of this family. You can’t just think about yourself.”

Anyway, I don’t think my dad’s views make him a bad person - just retrograde - but would an Fi person have had a less intense reaction? How would you have countered it? To me, it is not ok to make someone feel bad about themselves in this way. But he didn’t seem like he was trying to harm - he was even in a good mood.

---

I'm assuming the quoted part is what your dad said to you.

There's a part of the quote that I agree with and a part of the quote that I disagree with. As an anecdote, my partner is an LSE and she recently has been having some trouble with her sister, potentially SEI, about similar issues. The problem has been about her sister prioritizing other things over some scarce family time. While I (and my partner) would 100% agree with the last part of the quote; "You’re a member of this family. You can’t just think about yourself" (and I often state things in this same line of thought), the first part ("You are behind schedule on dating - it is your responsibility to have children") is incredibly rude. Having children is your own choice and your father has neither voice nor vote to push you to have them. If he's butthurt about not having his genes passed through generations, that's merely his own (sexist and self-centered) problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by golden

But apart from a Forbes article, on the face of it a statement like males get all their cog ability from their mothers sounds wrong. Inheritance is more complex than that, and cognition is extremely complex.

---

As far as Socionics is concerned, it's irrelevant because it's all about the software, and not the machine. People, who don't have a fully functional brain, comprise a small percentage but I've met many who haven't learned to use the cognitive tools that they were born with. When I was in grade 8, the entire school system was given IQ/aptitude tests, which I'm sure weren't very accurate. Up to that point, I was consistently in the middle of the pack but the teachers started saying that I could do better with my abilities. Suddenly, I was at the top of my class and I stayed there, but I doubt I was smarter than others in the class; I simply did better on a test one day and the right people noticed and changed their behaviour toward me. Sometimes, all one needs to be more "intelligent" is motivation or inspiration to go for it. Primary-care providers have the greatest influence on the cognitive abilities of the next generation.......:content:

a.k.a. I/O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rebelondeck

As far as Socionics is concerned, it's irrelevant because it's all about the software, and not the machine. People, who don't have a fully functional brain, comprise a small percentage but I've met many who haven't learned to use the cognitive tools that they were born with. When I was in grade 8, the entire school system was given IQ/aptitude tests, which I'm sure weren't very accurate. Up to that point, I was consistently in the middle of the pack but the teachers started saying that I could do better with my abilities. Suddenly, I was at the top of my class and I stayed there, but I doubt I was smarter than others in the class; I simply did better on a test one day and the right people noticed and changed their behaviour toward me. Sometimes, all one needs to be more "intelligent" is motivation or inspiration to go for it. Primary-care providers have the greatest influence on the cognitive abilities of the next generation.......:content:

a.k.a. I/O

---

A few comments on the order of conversation and not debate, though feel free to debate if you want lol:

Students’ expectations and beliefs in their abilities are considered the second most important predictor of educational success. (It used to be considered the first, but it was eventually overtaken by “teacher efficacy.”) This comes from someone in the education world who has been surveying all studies of ed. for a long time. So yes.

The brain is not a computer, so the analogy takes you only so far. For example, how would you really make a hard distinction between hardware and software when it comes to the brain?

A single standardized IQ test is not considered a very good indicator of a person’s overall intelligence by the psychiatrist I studied that topic with. I’m glad it worked out for you, but maybe for some students it would have been very discouraging. On the whole I think it wasn’t an ethical use of the test. An ethical use is to determine potential strengths and weaknesses with the IQ test, and compare those results to the results of other tests and many other factors. It’s not meant to pigeonhole someone, but to fill in one piece of a whole picture.

Scienctists at this point still consider a significant amount of intelligence to be heritable. Just ime, I’ve been around a lot of babies and kids for a very long time, often in school settings, and from day one some are brighter. But I do think most people can do more than they think they can. It just will require more effort, and sometimes a more appropriate instruction method, like the “flipped” classroom. And schools are not very flexible in giving more time or tailored instruction to students who need it.

Otoh I have an acquaintance who was a NYC school principal and who quit the field because he concluded after a few years that the expectation that every HS student should be on a college prep track was misguided. Some, in his view, simply could not pass all the classes on that track, and it set them up to fail. (Whether this was about inherited vs environmental intelligence wasn’t the question.) This was not what he expected when he went into that career. His opinion eventually became that students should have the option, as they do in some other western nations, to follow a trade path instead. This was not snobbery on his part, it was him recognizing that there is more than one way to be intelligent and more than one way to succeed.

I’ve also learned to be wary of projecting a higher intelligence level onto people than they really deserve. My husband likes to quote a professor he had a long time ago: “the stupidity of people explains the world around you.” Fair amount of truth in it, though I prefer to think of it as ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by golden

.......The brain is not a computer, so the analogy takes you only so far. For example, how would you really make a hard distinction between hardware and software when it comes to the brain?

A single standardized IQ test is not considered a very good indicator..............

---

Where hardware ends and software begins does not matter but Socionics is about processing. There's a lot of other firmware/software between computer hardware and say for example a word processor; one can become an expert in word processing without knowing the first thing about computers. Information processing structures need only be defined in relational/relativistic terms without getting into the brain.

I would say that no written test is a good indicator of how well one can do tasks other than doing tests. However, baby-boomers were subjected to a myriad of experimentation; there wasn't the insight that's available today although the boomers did provide a lot of today's insight.:content:

a.k.a. I/O

Sometimes when my LSE dad wants to help me (if he sees me in some emotional distress for instance) he'll deliver one of these short speeches, sort of similar to the initial post.

"You are behind schedule on dating - If you had siblings, they could share the responsibility of having grandchildren, but unfortunately since you are an only child it is your responsibility. You’re a member of this family. You can’t just think about yourself."

There is a possibility that while he believes everything he said verbatim is true, having seen you @lemontrees so heartbroken he may now worry you are lonely and so he wants you to date, because he thinks it'll also just be good for you. He might be trying to just take care of you in his own way. LSE's, ime, don't like to see discord or sadness in their family or their children.

His words DO make total sense to me, though as an ESI I don't think I'd put it that way (ever) to my own kids. He's probably right, but saying it that way is unhelpful.

If my kids asked my opinion, or seemed very against having children, I'd let them know that they should do what they want, but that 1) from my experience having children is extremely rewarding and also important as it gives you family connection in old age. 2) I might also share how many of my friends from my youth (artists, writers, musicians, etc.) didn't want to have kids and instead wanted to focus on their own pursuits. This was fine but then they spent so long on themselves that by the time they were desperate to have children (late 30's into early 40's) it was either too late for them or really really hard to conceive - a nightmare. 3) I'd tell my kids how I know childless couples in their 50's and 60's who deeply regret not having children, and how some of them have become very eccentric having never experienced the maturation caused by raising a child yourself. 4) And also how I truly wish I had had my kids younger, because the love we share is so great it would have been nice to get to experience it for even longer in life.

All that said, I don't like people to tell me what to do so I might be very annoyed if my dad said that to me. ;-)