self development within the socionics theory

[Hays]

Before knowing Socionics, my typical self was as Jung described shrieked away from objects, at the intensity of them, hence needed people and things to approach me smoothly, gently; I was passionate about my moral beliefs and how I judged the way others viewed things and their expression of things (I came to correct people's beliefs and adjust them according to how I saw them), so I was very much "I believe" "You should" "It would be right if x." Can you imagine how much energy one spends regulating thoughts for others when you are being at the center of life's experience? Too much. You begin to feel resentful, alone, because really no one else feels like they are like you and truly most people are not. They are just experiencing those things that provide them with pleasurable experiences. I didn't understand those differences about myself. I never evaluated my self in terms of my way of thinking being fair or not, they were "me." So, here comes Socionics saying "you are a judging rational type, who conveys feelings of love (as you feel them), morality, etc. and there is Joe and he sees life a bit differently from you." You begin to think, wow, I was never out to see Joe as he is, but to make an impression of myself on him. Joe has been himself all along, living the world around him in his constructed universe. So, I lax my moral judgement as I begin to the see the world more objectively, as I begin to see other people's feelings more objectively and from there, I relax, I begin to not be on moral expressiveness. How have I developed my own function when really I've done the opposite service to it? I've recognized when it wants to work and on what it does. I recognize the moments when it wants to be a passionate conspirer and what that will cost me in my relationships with people, the universe of ideas and possibilities beyond who I am and the impact that I want to make. I become less "I" focused.

Have edited a sentence from previous post to make the question clearer:

How is what you are describing not more fitting for an ESI type:
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ESI
ESIs tend to evaluate people's ethical behavior "as it is" and not "as it could be" or "as it could be interpreted according to the context or another person's point of view".

[Beautiful sky]

Have edited from previous post:

How is what you are describing not more fitting for an ESI type:
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ESI
ESIs tend to evaluate people's ethical behavior "as it is" and not "as it could be" or "as it could be interpreted according to the context or another person's point of view".

I already said "you should" is a suggestion of moral right way to be, which is what I say, not "You must."

[Words]

I already said "you should" is a suggestion of moral right way to be, which is what I say, not "You must."

This amounts to the same thing does it not? Saying you should and saying you must has equal force, the person decided anyway, however wether it is should or must, you will still judge them based on your own arbitrary distinction.

[anndelise]

This amounts to the same thing does it not? Saying you should and saying you must has equal force, the person decided anyway, however wether it is should or must, you will still judge them based on your own arbitrary distinction.

I had a similar reaction when I first read what she wrote. To me they feel like someone telling me what to do. But...

http://english.stackexchange.com/que...onable-command

The word should is used to indicate that among several possibilities one is recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or excluding others; or that a certain course of action is preferred but not necessarily required; or that (in the negative form) a certain course of action is deprecated but not prohibited (should equals is recommended that).

Must, on the other hand implies more conviction and determination. It also excludes other possibilities. And that a certain course of action is required, not just preferred.


Now, with that said, many people use "should" when they really mean "must". One way of checking that is to see what kind of consequences follow when you say no to someone who tells you what you should do. How do they respond to you telling them no, or otherwise refusing their "suggestion"?

(Kind of like when a parent 'asks' a child "would you get that for me?" If the child doesn't, does the parent further insist or punish the child? If yes, it wasn't a question, it was a command couched as a question. ime, similar often happens with "should".)

Edited to add: but I totally agree with the last part of what you wrote.