Gammas - not getting along and retyping

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Stuff

The Greeter is getting what I mean and what I think would be good to have answered.

Consequently I don't think what takes place is fighting=Se, but that depends on what you mean by fighting.

[calenwen]

I found this article today. It says it is written faceaceously.

It's a gamma SF uncovered.

I wonder what you think of it's accuracy?

http://www.socionics.com/articles/gammasf.html

Well, since it's written facetiously it obviously wasn't meant to be taken seriously, so I don't know why you would even question the accuracy ...?

[strrrng]

The Greeter is getting what I mean and what I think would be good to have answered.

Consequently I don't think what takes place is fighting=Se, but that depends on what you mean by fighting.

Why does it depend on what I mean by fighting? Se is what it is, and that doesn't include the act of fighting—period. Two Se valuers may engage in some form of competition that comes off to others as fighting, but that sheds no light on the actual cognitive process going on with the function. The manifestations of leverage, gauging physical variables, etc. is only a result of a much more complex psychic process, and thinking otherwise is foolish. It's akin to saying that a cough is a fever.

[strrrng]

Well, since it's written facetiously it obviously wasn't meant to be taken seriously, so I don't know why you would even question the accuracy ...?

Because you basically gave him no openings in your previous post. So, instead of countering with his own personal argument, he diverted the attention to some random source to diffuse the issue at hand.

[calenwen]

Because you basically gave him no openings in your previous post. So, instead of countering with his own personal argument, he diverted the attention to some random source to diffuse the issue at hand.

Bah, well it was a stupid question (no offense, Cyclops). But why would I say that an extremely negative article about my own type that was obviously written (mostly) in jest was accurate? That doesn't make any sense.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Bah, well it was a stupid question (no offense, Cyclops). But why would I say that an extremely negative article about my own type that was obviously written (mostly) in jest was accurate? That doesn't make any sense.

The article is using deliberately inappropriate humour to get it's point across but the author is being serious in what they think.

[strrrng]

Bah, well it was a stupid question (no offense, Cyclops). But why would I say that an extremely negative article about my own type that was obviously written (mostly) in jest was accurate? That doesn't make any sense.

Because it was a stupid diversion. No person in their right mind would write a serious article making such claims; and even if they did, no halfway intelligent individual would take it seriously.

And cyclops, why would you even reference that article when you said yourself that you observed this behavior in ISFjs.

I see it all the time in ISFj's, they suck up to people they think is important and ostracize those who they see as beneath them or in some way inferior. It makes me question the motives of Fi in ISFj.

Were your observations based off of an irreverent article written by (another) deluded ENTp with an inflated ego and no clue about socionics?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Because you basically gave him no openings in your previous post. So, instead of countering with his own personal argument, he diverted the attention to some random source to diffuse the issue at hand.

If you want to put reasons forward for someones motives then it helps if you say this is what I think, or it appears otherwise you are most likely completely wrong.

[strrrng]

The article is using deliberately inappropriate humour to get it's point across but the author is being serious in what they think.

*** Written facetiously. These tactics are not recommended nor even desired by the author.

If he's serious in what he thinks, why not write a serious article?

And if he's serious about that shit, he has no place writing an article.

If you actually bought that load of bunk, and then proceeded to claim that you observed said behavior...yeah...lol.

[calenwen]

The article is using deliberately inappropriate humour to get it's point across but the author is being serious in what they think.

As long as they [Gamma SFs] get what they want first, they really despite any possible gestures of civility and thoughtfulness, they couldn't care less about anything else and there's no sense to them in devoting time a moment's time to considering another's inconvenience.

...Really?

Whoever wrote it couldn't even write a cohesive sentence. Blah, this is pointless. The end.

[calenwen]

If he's serious in what he thinks, why not write a serious article?

And if he's serious about that shit, he has no place writing an article.

If you actually bought that load of bunk, and then proceeded to claim that you observed said behavior...yeah...lol.

Thank you.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

If he's serious in what he thinks, why not write a serious article?

And if he's serious about that shit, he has no place writing an article.

I don't know, why don't you ask whoever wrote it instead of me?

Or are you just going to follow me around for a while?

...Really?

Whoever wrote it couldn't even write a cohesive sentence. Blah, this is pointless. The end.

Which sentence do you not understand?

[strrrng]

I don't know, why don't you ask whoever wrote it instead of me?

Or are you just going to follow me around for a while?

Which sentence do you not understand?

I'm not "following you around." I just get annoyed when I see someone egregiously trying to evade something when they were simply wrong/misinformed.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'm not "following you around."

Why ask me questions on the author then?

I just get annoyed when I see someone egregiously trying to evade something when they were simply wrong/misinformed.

What's that got to do with you asking me questions about the author?

[strrrng]

Why ask me questions on the author then? What's that got to do with you asking me questions about the author?

I'm pointing out flaws. And I wasn't asking you questions about the author. I was asking you a question in reference to a claim that you made about the author—that he was serious about what he wrote. If you presume to have that knowledge, then my asking how you acquired it is not out of the realm of reason. But to renege when I do ask you that is basically bullshit, and is the same thing you did when calenwen corrected you on your erroneous perceptions of gamma SF's. Just admit your wrong and shut the fuck up, instead of evading with crappy post-hoc rationalizations every time someone demonstrates your fallacies.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You're not worth it.

[strrrng]

You're not worth it.

But of course I'm worth enough for you to have to tell me such. Nice copout.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

This thread is worth chiming in in. Basically, Diana has given the most sensible statements overall. Yes, people for some inane reason seek to glorify type and quadra. While I admit that I like learning about that which pertains to myself the most, I see absolutely no sense in glorying about it. You cannot even prove socionics or type or anything. People are people so why create needless hostility and needless distinctions? That is mostly in my view though I think others might agree.

As for true versus false Gammas, I never was supportive of ostracizing others because I did not agree with their self-typings. I think it's stupid. I think the self-typed ILIs get the most flax and when I reconsidered my type to ILI, I was anticipating getting such flax, but I only re-evaluated because it was supported by more evidence while annulling my former type. Having said that, I have noticed the tendency to toss many of the Gammas into Beta (while those who object to me being ILI will throw me to Delta, which is fine by me though I am well over 80% certain of my type). To be honest, I have noticed, taking the ILI vs IEI example which has been most common around here, it is as if IEI is a more flexible type than ILI. I am not saying that this is the case but that this is how these two types have generally been treated in the socionics community. Now I am not saying either that people are necessarily thinking this, but this is the generally vibe I get. In any case, while Gammas, stereotypically I will add, are highly exclusive, I do think it is a wrong mentality that Gammas may have that unless someone fits these rigid criteria, they are not Gamma. Of course, I already mentioned I think this is false and I don't think many if most Gammas actually think this way but I think this is sometimes the sense people have.

What I am really trying to say is that I think there are certain mentalities that are attributed to Gamma that I believe has been bred in this community versus what a Gamma would naturally think that gives this sense of rigidity on these matters of being a type, not being a type, fitting in the quadra, not fitting in, that have in part catalyzed the rather harsh disputes that have been seen in the past. I am not saying I disagree with people disagreeing on a self-type, especially if they have good reasons or good sense to believe that, but I am more talking about an attitude of contempt, that is, one's personal sentiments that get leaked into what should be an objective analysis which creates the needless friction.

And as far as Se goes, I'm as peace-loving as anyone but I do value Se. Se is will and its manifestation in concrete action and is a element that focuses on the external details of the physical environment. To attribute it to friction is senseless and is derived from not seeing the function for what it is and simply making poor generalizations based on stereotypes that are given far more credit than deserved as far as those notions being relatable to factual instances.

And also, to parrot Diana, I don't think selfish gain has much if anything to do with what Gamma types are about. I personally relate to the opposite though I suppose in practice I might come off otherwise. According to sources, Gamma is more about collaborative efforts to achieve a goal and if I recall correctly, Gammas have an inclination towards self-sacrifice which is intended to serve a greater good. This does not sound to be in accordance with purely selfish goals. In fact, I would say it's the archetypal Delta mindset that would be closer to that, but only because of the focus on the near and dear versus the greater sphere that is not naturally in their vantage point of concern as stereotypically, their area of concern is for themselves and those few important people that matter to them. I sometimes get the impression that they could let the rest of the world sod off, but that is just an archetypal understanding of that.

There is much more I could or would say, but I think I have said enough.

Thanks for this informative post. I think what you say makes a lot of sense. I'm a little more glad I posted the thread now :-)

[Khamelion]

i likes all demz ppls

[discojoe]

Why did you add FDG to the list? You can't type retarded people.

[Ritella]

yay. Hostage Child is back!

[Mea]

So we have the following people typing themselves as Gamma (not including ESFp's on this list) :

Expat
Jarno
Joy
Diana
Allie
Crazedrat
FDG
Niffweed
Phaedrus
Discojoe
Warlord

Sorry if I missed anyone out.

It seems like all you guys do when you communicate with each other is disagree with each other, insult each other, throw each other into different quadras and what have you. What's with that?

Do you all need ESFp's to get along?

i think it's a misunderstanding.
they're giving their opinions and it's natural that people disagree with each other and discuss things.

[Bardia]

We get along fine with one another. It just doesn't look that way because we are fairly critical.

[Ritella]

[Tom]

We get along fine with one another. It just doesn't look that way because we are fairly critical.

"Fairly" is a gross understatement.

[Shazaam]

I think you're looking at perceptions too much. Obviously, Alpha/Beta are going to appear more cartoony and less serious, but in all actuality I think all quadras are equally serious/funny in their own ways.

It's like Animaniacs. The most pointless, silly, off-the-wall show on earth frequently had references to how 'The holocaust was bad mmmmkay.' Southpark is another one. Or Buffy even. All DEEPLY moral shows w/o being preachy or obvious about it. You can't really call any one of them 'serious' (What Hero has the name 'Buffy' for fuck sakes) but they were.

Then again, some Gamma shows like Daria tried way too hard to be serious at times, but ended up kinda just being a farty joke about high school in the end. I think Gamma/Delta might be like this. They come across as the most serious and 'poignant' quadras but are really not.

[munenori2]

Man, did my brother write that? It sounds exactly like the relationship he had living with my sister (ESFp) in an apartment.

[munenori2]

lol, your brother is LII if I remember right?

Yeah, it was even accurate in how he would goad her. I think my other sister is ISFj and he gets along with her well, but he can still piss her off pretty much the same way.