Movement to rename "conflictors"

[Pa3s]

The issue with "incompatibility" is that it might just be the same as saying "conflictor" since both make sense when applied to Socionics alone.

Yeah, you're maybe right. But it still fits pretty well.

It's called conflictor because the functions conflict, not because the people are going to hate each other.

I think a conflict does not necessarily include hatred.

[Slacker]

Yeah, you're maybe right. But it still fits pretty well.



I think a conflict does not necessarily include hatred.

Well I was exaggerating. But anyway I'm OK with the word "conflictor" because that's specifically what's being described as far as how the functions interact.

[Suz]

Pianosinger, i think you've noticed what a lot of us are noticing about the conflictor inter-type relation as well.

IME, i've clashed more with supervisors and superegos, and more consciously can't stand them, than conflictors.

A problem i've run into with conflictors who have tried to teach me is that their teaching and explanations make no sense to me. It's like they're speaking a foreign language. I've run into this with supervisors to an extent as well. One LSI teacher i had would be explaining how to do some calculation and would totally confuse me because he would just say the number without the units (at least i think that was part of it). and he would be like, yeah so you take that and that and that, and that equals that, etc etc. I dont think he got me either, and he probably was frustrated that I wasn't understanding his explanations and kept asking for clarifications. I liked the guy though.

[tcaudilllg]

"antagonistic" -- like this one.

[Aiss]

Call me prejudiced, but in my experience, conflictors conflict. That doesn't imply "hate" or anything such, not even "dislike". People are more likely to react with boredom and indifference to id information, IMO.

I agree another name might potentially be better, but renaming a relation isn't going to change its nature. In particular, if your typings don't fit with intertype relations, not on personal, but socionics information exchange level, it seems like a very self-deceiving way to fix it.

[Creepy-Snaps]

You all are considering re-naming conflictors because of one personal testament? C'mon people. Think for a second. You all just accepted pianosinger's judgment that her brother was a conflictor, because she said so. Really?

Call me prejudiced, but in my experience, conflictors conflict. That doesn't imply "hate" or anything such, not even "dislike". People are more likely to react with boredom and indifference to id information, IMO.

I agree another name might potentially be better, but renaming a relation isn't going to change its nature. In particular, if your typings don't fit with intertype relations, not on personal, but socionics information exchange level, it seems like a very self-deceiving way to fix it.

This is perfect. Thank you. At least someone has some sense.

[ashlesha]

You all are considering re-naming conflictors because of one personal testament? C'mon people. Think for a second. You all just accepted pianosinger's judgment that her brother was a conflictor, because she said so. Really?.

it doesnt follow that just because they agreed about "conflictor" not being the best term it means that they took her word about her brother's type. she isn't the first person i've seen write that they don't "conflict" with their conflictor in that way. it's at least as likely that they agree because of their own experiences or for some other reason.

[Pa3s]

@MD:
I think you're taking that a little too seriously. I think nobody really wanted to change the official name of that relation (except for pianosinger maybe, but she only proposed that). We just made suggestions how the name could be changed in order to make the actual meaning clearer. Almost every term is known and already has a meaning as it was said. A good example would be 'aristocratic' vs 'democratic'. I think it's hard for beginners to distinguish socionic terms from real-life ones.