
Originally Posted by
sleep
Look I get it that supervisor rings have a special mathematical symmetry about them that relates to super-egos, but with one partner in a mirrored aspect that puts more psychological strength over and onto the other's strongest weaknesses. But the basis for my Benefit rings are from observation. When I've typed people I've found that when I got to know them better I was often questioning whether they were another type adjacent to their benefit ring. I then started to notice that this pops up in many type threads of popular tv shows and such and many of the heated debates of people's types. All you have to do is look and see if it's there or if I'm making this up or if it's just bias (It's not, it's very prevalent). You can keep it in mind and look for yourself or you can be an asshole and ignore it. Either way, I shared this for your benefit; I already am aware of it.
I don't understand why sharing a cognitive style is more important than this. Perhaps you could explain?
Okay, sleep, your theory is culled from observations, cool. That's fine and all but you're not explaining why it happens, leaving your observations without a justification to exist. In other words, you're making unfounded claims, and while this phenomenon may actually exist in reality, the theory stage needs either observable evidence or a rational explanation, which this thread is lacking. I mentioned the Supervisory rings because there are actual justifications and evidence behind them(not that it's valid), but as it stands your Benefit rings theory is just a hypothesis. Furthermore you're reasoning is fallacious, specifically in commanding me to "look and see what's there", you are on the stand to prove this to us as a witness. Also, your false dichotomy of "do this or be an asshole and ignore it". Now, I'm not saying I've never seen anything to suggest its validity, but at the same time, it's not enough to claim this theory as fact.