Areas where you are rebellious

[Ms. Kensington]

- What're you rebelling against, Johnny?
- Whaddya got?


I'm pretty much anti-everything (especially against people who label themselves deviants ). I'm not even ideologically consistent about it.

that's attractive, now that sounds like it may have to do with the program function (your example)

[Ms. Kensington]

If there's no one who thinks that you're "supposed to" listen to someone, how does that person have any authority over you?

no, i was just refering to

Doing so would mean that there's something I'm "supposed to" submit to though, and I don't believe that there is. I answered for what others would probably think I am being rebellious regarding (namely, tradition), but I personally do not believe it's possible for me to be rebellious.

in that if you admit you are rebellious it means that someone has power over you. rebelling to me is just difference. Someone goes left you go right, it doesnt mean they are the boss of directions and you must follow them, or something.

[Logos]

I think in terms of cause and effect relationships and personal freedom. If I get a speeding ticket, I'll pay it. Why? It is most certainly NOT because I see the DMV, the courts, or the police as an authority over me. It's because if I don't, the fine will increase, my license will be taken away, it may go on my credit report, it may be taken out of my tax return, and I may go to jail.

I chose to speed and I am choosing to pay or not pay the ticket based on cause and effect relationships.

The idea of authority (as well as its threat) is still very implicit in your description here. So how is it an illusion?

Leadership is, imo, determining what the group needs to accomplish and finding the best way to accomplish it. The best way is a way which is in the best interests of everyone involved (both long term and short term) and accomplishes the objective in the most effective and efficient manner. Doing this requires the ability to incite cooperation from all parties involved. This is usually best accomplished by finding out what each person responds best to and then giving them that type of encouragement.

An effective leader rarely needs to threaten or punish people and does not necessarily need a position of authority. If he/she is aware of the situation and in tune with the cause and effect relationships at play, he/she won't need an official position of authority because there are other ways of accomplishing something through cause and effect relationships. (The type of cause and effect relationship I described in the first paragraph of this post is certainly not the only kind.) Sometimes the dynamics of the situation may need to be altered, but that does not mean that people have to recognize that you're "in charge". (If you have to tell people that you're in charge, you're not.) In fact, the best way to lead is often by standing in the shadows of the people you're leading. Give them the credit for accomplishments whenever possible. Also, when they make a mistake, it's often best to shield them from humiliation. Take responsibility for the mistake the people you're leading have made, and offer solutions.

(Of course, there are some people that do not respond well to this, in which case you should just do whatever's fair and effective.)

This is why leadership is a service. You're working for everyone's best interests, and this often involves dealing with a lot of responsibility (like I said, when they succeed it's on them and when they fail it's on you... it's often a thankless job, if what you're looking for is recognition/praise), requires a great deal of patience and diplomacy, and many times means doing a great deal of work (this should be lessened though once things get going and you can effectively delegate tasks).

While I certainly agree in terms of what makes effective leadership, (I hate to say this as the Alpha to the Gamma), but this sounds quite idealistic and unrealistic in terms of how leadership is generally conducted.

Is this sarcasm?

If not, see what I said above about why leadership is a service. (Providing a service is, imo, doing something for someone else, whether it's for money, for praise, because you want to, because you think you have to, etc.)

Humor? Sarcasm? Never.

It's all a matter of perspective. One of the things I find myself thinking about a lot is the different layers of reality present in any given situation.

Interesting. This definitely sounds like unvalued .

I was married to an LII, so I may have a vague idea of what you were talking about. He and I were similar in the ways you mentioned, but different in the reasons we did what we did and (to some extent) what we accomplished in doing it.

That's a good way of putting it. I do think that Gamma and Alpha NTs are more alike than they like to let on.

[hellothere]

I'm not sure if this is at all relevant to your question, but sometimes when I'm with my friends, if everyone is being really comfortable and all enthusiastically agreeing about something or praising someone, I feel the need to take an opposing stance, or at least try to question them. I try to "rebel" by being different from the pack, by asserting my independence.

[Joy]

no, i was just refering to



in that if you admit you are rebellious it means that someone has power over you. rebelling to me is just difference. Someone goes left you go right, it doesnt mean they are the boss of directions and you must follow them, or something.

When other people use the word "rebellious", is this what you assume they mean unless they give you a reason to think otherwise?

I wonder if the difference between our personal definitions of "rebellious" have to do with Fe valuing vs. Se valuing. I'm not sure I entirely understand where you're coming from though, so it's hard to say.

The idea of authority (as well as its threat) is still very implicit in your description here. So how is it an illusion?

I'm sure there are a lot of people who would see it as such. However, in that situation, the idea that they have authority over me would not cross me mind. It's the same for managers. They may be able to fire me, but I do not recognize them as being in charge of me or having authority over me.

I don't think continuing to discuss this point would be of any value. If a person is someone who thinks in terms of who has authority over who, (s)he'll see it everywhere. (S)he may obey an authority figure because (s)he thinks that person is in charge of him/her and fail to recognize that the only reason that person has any control over him/her is because (s)he gives it.

While I certainly agree in terms of what makes effective leadership, (I hate to say this as the Alpha to the Gamma), but this sounds quite idealistic and unrealistic in terms of how leadership is generally conducted.

To some extent, but as an overall concept it's usually something that can be done. If it's not, then we'd be back to:

(Of course, there are some people that do not respond well to this, in which case you should just do whatever's fair and effective.)

Humor? Sarcasm? Never.

Interesting. This definitely sounds like unvalued .

Oh? I'm not sure I understand how. I guess I've just assumed that seeing something from other perspectives is something Ne types do.

That's a good way of putting it. I do think that Gamma and Alpha NTs are more alike than they like to let on.

Yes, in a lot of ways they are.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

People walk all over me all the time, but this is because I choose to lay down and be used as a doormat. Authority is just an illusion - I have all the power really.

[krieger]

Easy, they hate using Se and are fairly poor at gaging it, but they hate when that function is exerted against them and will resist attempts to do so. As Se entails some degree of willpower assertion, an LII resisting said assertion would make the LII appear as a rebellious type.

Actually Hitta is right on this one (from what I can tell)... Re-analyze your relations with ESTp's. We don't hate their initiative in the way we hate that of the ESFp. In fact, the initiative of an ESTp is at first envigorating to an INTj, because it so much resembles that of our dual. Where it goes wrong is in that the ESTp always tries to make the INTj care about things that s/he is indifferent to. They always try to push 'fun' and involvement on us (+Ti/+Fe), but the kind of involvement they offer endangers our need to stay self-posessed.

All I ask is that the INTj's on this forum open up to this possibility, test it, and see wether it helps them understand their relation with ESTp's in the way it helped me.

[force my hand]

Wow, you are totally awesome. I hope to give something else if I ever get trapped. Maybe a sapphire? Ruby? Whatever her fav color is.

Useless fact: rubies and sapphires are actually the same mineral, 'Corundum'.

[Logos]

Actually Hitta is right on this one (from what I can tell)... Re-analyze your relations with ESTp's. We don't hate their initiative in the way we hate that of the ESFp. In fact, the initiative of an ESTp is at first envigorating to an INTj, because it so much resembles that of our dual. Where it goes wrong is in that the ESTp always tries to make the INTj care about things that s/he is indifferent to. They always try to push 'fun' and involvement on us (+Ti/+Fe), but the kind of involvement they offer endangers our need to stay self-posessed.

All I ask is that the INTj's on this forum open up to this possibility, test it, and see wether it helps them understand their relation with ESTp's in the way it helped me.

Since your reply does not seem to be addressing what I am getting at all, I would suggest that you reread my post in an isolated corner and actually think about what is being said.

[Black Molly]

In the way Diana described 'rebellious', I'd say that I am directly deviant against the 'object' exactly in the way Jung described it. I dislike the object in that I hate general consensus, and seeing many people agree makes me sick. I guess I try to be the photonegative of the object, which I think is sort of more like an inverted form of extraversion than a form of introversion. I think that I am guided by the object. I certainly care about what others think of me more than I should, probably, and my wanting to be constantly different than others always gets my mother telling me I should just do what I want and not care about what others think. Except that concept is actually foreign to me and I do not think that way. If I find someone with the same hairstyle as I, I'd have to change it (some people are getting close to my current one, so that might happen.) But I'm content enough living this way.

Ok, maybe it's not as extreme as described...

So what you are saying is that others control you. I would imagine your outlook here is one that would keep you "on guard" at all times. Wow! It upsets me a bit that you are so driven that way.

PS. Your mother gives good advice. Listen up!