Discuss.
Discuss.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I could see this being the case if the person was shitty/incompatible/etc. but you still felt a mutual understanding in communication, or the manner in which you each annoyed each other. That could exacerbate things more than simply dealing with an opposing quadra member who was not only incommunicable but also a stupid prick.
Although, from my experience, it isn't the people in my own quadra who are the most frustrating. I can dislike some betas intensely, sure; but I still ruefully recognize them as my kin on some level, and feel a more personalized ease in conflicting with them. Most deltas who annoy me (which is the majority) I don't pay much attention to anyway; but if I do, I usually have to keep it brief, to prevent the internal frustration from boiling over (but most deltas I interact with are snobby jews, so it's not the best sample). Neighboring quadras, however, can be endlessly annoying, because it's like they go about things similarly but in entirely divergent and wrong directions. Alphas use Fe for stupid purposes, etc.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I'm definitely guilty of those last two
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Beta Quadra; Where your friends are your enemies, your enemies are your enemies, and where you attract so much attention even your enemies enemies will sometimes band together and lend a hand in your demise.
Easy Day
lol, so true...
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I'll have to think about the veracity of your claims. Not that I hate many people, but for those that I could say I do with some confidence, I think I understand them. But, these individuals are not necessarily in my quadra and the reasons are not quadra related.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your assumption is that one understands what one hates. A sound assumption but it is my belief that Socionics is not the determinant of profound understanding of another person.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
I tend to think of functions as "mental tools," which have conclusions that take up "mental space." We configure our perception of the world to fit what we have seen, using the mental tools we possess. Now, if someone has different mental tools than you entirely, their perception of the world is probably going to be drastically different in very key ways, even if their experience is identical. Given the huge differences in how you put things together, your "mental space" is probably not even threatened or disturbed by what you see in a person this different from yourself; all you can really to is attempt to understand the differences.
On the other hand, if you meet someone who has similar mental tools, but has drastically different life experiences, then you are probably going to wind up with very different views on things. However, they are going to be constructed in similar ways, ways that each other can understand, but given your different experiences, you are naturally going to think that this other person is placing emphasis in all the wrong places.
In a sense, you have to think similarly to someone in order to disagree with them; you have to be trying to "occupy the same space," so to speak.
A great example of this is my LSE mother and I. She places emphasis on things in her life that, from a logical perspective, I can see as potentially valid to another human being, but I just don't think like she does; we just have entirely different priorities in life. We place emphasis on entirely different things in our lives. However, our goals, while divergent, aren't necessarily conflicting: she wants a stable, happy life for herself and her family, and to contribute to the world positively in any way that is within her means, without taking things to an extreme. I, on the other hand, want to flourish personally and artistically, and more than any pursuit of personal happiness, stability, having a family life, or concrete contribution to society, I want to create works of art and literature that will alter the way people think, that they will relate to in ways that will both comfort and disturb them; to make them feel human but question their humanity; to reassure them that they are not alone but discourage them from ever being anyone but themselves; to always climb and reach for higher things, but not be afraid to fall and revel in the depths of themselves. Our views are not entirely incompatible or contrary, but they aren't exactly commensurate either; simply put, we're just very different.
On the other hand, my former boss, an LSI ex Army Ranger, sees the world in terms that are very familiar to me: it was always easy for me to understand what he was saying, and I very quickly picked up on his thought processes, ways of doing things, and even his broader perspectives on life just by interacting with him. However, because we had drastically different experiences in life, our views were totally incompatible, and I think had we ever gotten to know each other on the basis of discussing personal views, we would have disagreed vehemently: he believes, above all else, in personal integrity and adherence to "rules" that everyone should follow in order to promote personal growth and for humanity to remain afloat.
Personally I see his perspective on people as dangerous and intrusive: I think that forcing people to follow "rules" is a pathetic excuse for self-actualization, and undermines everything real about existing as a genuine human being. I'm sure he would see my perspective similarly: intrusive upon the inherent order in society, and dangerous to the way things have come to function. In some greater sense, I'm sure both of these perspectives are necessary, but you can see what I'm getting at here.
My mother, if she knew about these two different perspectives, would probably think that both of us are too adamant, and take our own views too seriously, but would not feel threatened by either of us, because she knows that she is living the life that she loves, and that the world is, in some sense, better for her having lived.
However, while I see more merit in my mother's take on life, and see it as less "evil," in a sense, when it comes to literally placing myself in another person's shoes, I could never live her life. My ex-boss has a sense of purpose and duty in his life that I see as absolutely essential to my continued existence; if I ever thought that I would simply descend into being placated by an average life, just do my "level best," have a "stable life," I would be horrified, disgusted with myself, and probably turn suicidal. I just cannot comprehend ever wanting to resign to that view of the world. However, the military-esque sense of duty given off by my boss, the way he single-mindedly pursues his goals, is admirable to me: while I disagree with just about everything he stands for, I can understand why he feels the way he feels about things, and I see traits in him, even negative ones, that I know I share, that are disgusting to me simply BECAUSE they are exactly how I am sometimes.
This, I think, is a good example of how people from the same quadra try to "occupy the same space," in a sense, and therefore are more likely to conflict, whereas people from opposing quadras are more likely than not simply confused by one another, incapable of standing in the other's shoes.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Sounds true of beta, however I presume you don't really need a thread about it. It is relentless.
I hate myself the most. I am in my quadra. How about you folks?
I undermine this thread. Quadra relations are already used as a typing system all on their own, however we'd be worse off if it gets flipped on its head. There would still be a continuous shift of interpretation, but this idea would be to misinterpret theory from the start.
I had to think about this. There are more behaviors that I hate than people. It's hard for me to hate any particular individual if I am at least minimally acquainted with them.
Generally the people I can't stand are those I observe from afar, like celebrities, politicians, people on Judge Judy. And in those cases, they are definitely not people in my own quadra. I also don't see this proposition as being based in Socionics. It seems opposed actually.
EII
4w5, sp/sx
Probably. The cliche 'there is a thin line between love and hate' has a lot of truth to it. And also 'what gives you great pleasure also has the power to give you great pain.' So therefore in a way, I can see how this is somewhat true. I don't think it's fully true though, I think it's a half-truth. The people you hate the most are in your quadra.
Well, the people you LOVE the most are in your quadra as well.
Your conflicting quadra tends to confuse you and make you feel misunderstood. It's not all that emotional, it's more like a base analytical understanding that gets all skewered. You just talk over and past each other, and direct one-on-one communication feels awkward. Even if you both WANT to understand and love each other, it doesn't seem to be happening. And such, more dangerous hate naturally seems to fester under the surface between these two quadras.
Nah, the people in my quadra are too easy to understand and empathize with for me to hate, or even passionately dislike. The worst feeling I feel is indifference (which is pretty bad for me, I hate not caring one way or the other about someone). The people who inspire passionate negative feelings in me can come from any of the other three quadras, but I can't think of a single one from my own.
At first I couldn't identify with hating people, but then I thought about it. There are certain times when I'll think a person is completely worthless and the world would be better off if they had never existed. I think that's when I hate someone. It doesn't even necessarily take me a lot of exposure to a person to feel that way about them. I can tell you right now the kinds of behaviors that make me want to wipe a person off the face of the earth. And I can't associate any of them with typical Delta flaws. A few examples:
- Betrayals of the innocent.
- Abandoning someone who trusts you for your own advantage.
- Gaslighting someone.
- Gleeful amoral behavior.
EII
4w5, sp/sx
Not true for me, really.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
It's an odd phenomenon because I feel as though I feel the most comfortable with Deltas IRL but--and it pains me oh so much to say this--half of the deltas here are the oddest, most morally judgemental and uptight people I've probably come across and it bothers me. That is half the reason I never thought I was delta.
Two possibilities:
1) those deltas aren't deltas
2) those deltas are deltas and their deeply held values would be kept tightly under wraps in interpersonal interactions; it's only here in an anonymous forum that those seeingly uptight views are shared and perhaps come across the wrong way. However, it's those deeply held hidden uptight values that makes them the people you enjoy interacting with IRL.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Opposites attract ?
Maritsa is my favorite.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
when I have an issue with betas (and more often than not it's with j-subs, theatrical hyenas), it feels closer to the edge, detachedly personal in a way; whereas with deltas, conflict is always implied by the sterile sense of moral contiguity, if that makes sense.
4w3-5w6-8w7
As a rule, I get along with Deltas quite well. As long as they're not withdrawn individuals with no sense of fun, which alas isn't really uncanny with this quadra.
But the truth is, I always have been equally drawn to Alphas. Perhaps more, even. Therein lay part of my past problem with typing. On the Polish forum I had been given this beautiful decoration -
24631955.jpg
And so I brag.
Last edited by malna; 06-25-2013 at 12:27 AM.
I call myself batyote and I fight crime at night.
3) Maritsa isn't Delta.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
In general, I don't think the people you hate the most from your quadra although I can see why people might sometimes think that for various reasons.
*You are more likely to get closer to people in your quadra, so you see their true flaws as well.
*They can disappoint you because at first you seem so compatible but then you find differences and start having conflicts. This is true for any relationship but it hurts more because you thought things were going so well.
*There is more likely to be a rivalry due to similar interests you are more likely to compete for the same territory.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Interesting idea. I'm sure that these people are not well liked only because of superficial details though. It'd be a good thing to test.
One test I'd like to do is put 16 people representative of each type and see what happens. Another variable to consider is type knowledge, so we could try three experiments, one where the people know nothing about type, one where people know their type but not others, and one where people have their type displayed on their name tags. If they don't take to talking, it might be good to tell them to try and socialize with the others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
No I dislike this personality the most:
maybe I really am a beta after all!
Hate is always a converted form of fear. I don't fear Delta people, they are nice and having shared values is good. I would rather say I hate/fear but also respect the Beta STs who can exercise the IEs that I am insecure with. I see overt force and cluster thinking as threats once they get in the way of broad humanitarian views () so it makes sense.
Does not compute personally. To me fear and hate are completely separate entities. I think you can fear and like something at the same time.?
I want to hear an explanation.
OK, if valuing people take stance from egocentric perspective then valuers do it from allocentric ways. Hence in valuing way fear something external like acknowledging danger while do not essentially like it when it hurts them.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Cute I hope this helps: My statement is a perspective. Fear means experiencing threat (instead of well-wishing) from another person, and hate is the defense mode to shield the bad intentions from your perceived vulnerability. Fear, in allocentric terms, is an emotional expression displaying fright, while hate is blatant disdain, snark, avoidance, or anger signaling.