Emotivist/Constructivist dichotomy. Do you buy it?
Gotta buy the emotivist/constructivist dichotomy. My supervisee is emotivist. I dig our convos for, partially, that reason. My theory is, basically, if you're in an irritable mood, the emotivist/constructivist dichotomy will play out.
Anybody have a take on it? Buy or sell?
It’s funny because my supervisee, ILE, is also constructivist like I am, and it’s a point of tension in our convos. My supervisor is an emotivist, but because they’re my supervisor the interaction just comes off like they’re telling me I’m dumb for being a constructivist.Originally Posted by Stray Cat
My favorite emotivists are LIIs and SEIs, my lookalikes and beneficiaries. Also some of my favorite types for buds.
My duals are the emotivists who will try to get me to forget what triggered my constructivist oofs.
Sure, as long as it's not trying to imply emotivists can't be constructive and constructivist's can't have feelings.
The way I view any dichotomy is there is truth to them but it's rarely ever a 100% thing on either side. On the Gay/Str8 dichotomy I definitely fall under the 'Gay' side more, but I have very rarely found sexual/romantic enjoyment with women. It's not like if I touch a boob I will auto-TK blast myself into a wall and die like Prue on Season 3 on original Charmed.
They are definitely useful, but I think it's much more idk 'ethical' , 'human' or whatever to also see the complicated layers & sides of a person beyond those strict Ti lines. (even though I value Ti)
Maybe there are some dichotomies that are that extreme though, like if you asked me if I'd rather play video games all day or stand in line at the DMV and deal with some power hungry Te person. lol
That sucks. My guess is psychological distance is a real thing. You, as a person, can determine who or what might irritate you and adjust accordingly. You're a smart person, whose replies I dig reading. But yeah, this dichotomy is interesting
My experience with constructivists is they make the conversation business like, rather than emotionally. Apparently, constructivist prefer a certain routine to provide equilibrium to their emotions. Basically, they may get home after work & watch the same films. It stabilizes their emotional state because constructivist prefer constructing their emotions, so to speak.
That's my theory.
I've seen that in action. I knew a constructivist that would do exactly what you described and it boggles my mind because I am not like that. I gotta loose myself in the emotion and go from there.
Likewise!
Hm, I can buy it. It's slightly difficult to get a clear picture of the Emotivist description on sociotype.com, but I know I don't relate to the Constructivist description in the introduction at all.
For the "Characteristics:"
I'd say the emotivist is definitely more accurate for me here, but the entire point of voluntary social interaction is that it's voluntary! I'm not sure why you wouldn't prioritize the "emotional background." If this is true for Constructivists, it makes me wonder how or why they make friends.Constructivist: Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements. Emotivist: Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.
Again, definitely the Emotivist. My feelings about old books/films/places quickly fade if I try to re-experience them over and over. I want to experience new things and ideas all the time.Constructivist: Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state. Emotivist: Prefer the new and novel over the old and known.
Again the emotivist. I find it hard to praise or enjoy books or films if there's a poorly-done part in it. It really annoys me if something feels underdeveloped. I want my time to be spent appreciating things that are really well-done; excellent. I feel angry, or at least close to it, when I have to spend my time reading, listening to, or watching anything half-baked.Constructivist: Can become 'emotionally hooked', and can have a strong reaction to a particular part or section regardless of their feelings towards the entirety. Emotivist: Information perceived as unprofessional or low-quality can leave them indifferent.
I'm not entirely sure what this means, but I'd go with constructivist here, I think. I have no trouble not considering someone's request for me to do something for them, though the wording here seems strange, so I wonder if I'm understanding this correctly. And I can sometimes get lost in the attitude of a group or passionate individual. I consider this one of my weaknesses. This was worse when I was a kid; I'd try to spend most of my time alone so that I could "be myself," since I found it harder to think my own thoughts or know how to respond to things when I was part of a group.Constructivist: Have greater difficulty disassociating from others' emotions and experiences than from requests for action or consideration. Emotivist: Have greater difficulty disassociating from requests for action or consideration than from others' emotions and experiences.
As for the first, it would really depend on the problem. It irritates me when people give me solutions to general problems in life, especially ones I've already considered, when all I really want or need is motivation. For the second, yeah, that's generally true, but I'm pretty curious why anyone wouldn't think that way."I prefer when people offer concrete solutions instead of comfort or sympathy."/"If a conversation is emotionally negative, I consider it wasted."
I think I do both, but neither really seems satisfactory honestly.
Idk what to think about this dichotomy. I can remember having phases where I identified strongly with both, mostly because I was either finding comfort in novelty or something from the past.
Both attitudes seem at once right and wrong.
Sell
I’ve studied this dichotomy for a minute, and essentially the attributes separating constructivist and emotivist are: constructivist has ethical functions in an inert position, and emotivist has ethical functions in contact position. It’s harder for constructivists to dissociate from their inert emotional responses, so to counter it they avoid overly emotional contact with the world. For emotivists, these ethical functions are how they interact with the world, so it’s easier for them to use them directly without having to be as careful.
It would be interesting to read experiences emotivist have conversing. In speaking with emotivists I believe they converse with constructivists for stability, reliability.
On an online forum of LIIs & IEIs, the LIIs genuinely enjoy interacting with EIIs. It wasn't that LIIs don't dig their identical relations (or benefactor), it was just that the EIIs were more "foundational" in how they expressed themselves earning LIIs respect for it.
In other words, When EIIs care for something, they are absolute & do not waver. I believe LIIs admire this, perhaps unconsciously.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
