To have fun!Originally Posted by XoX
That is a good questionSomehow I always talk in terms of winning and losing. I kind of see that in all situations that kind of division exists. Actually that is one of the main ways to motivate myself. If it is not about winning then why even bother?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Who are you to tell me how I should feel? This is incredibly idiotic. In spite of the irritated tone of this postSo, much worse and the real test for "team spirit" is if someone feels happy when the team loses. This feeling is usually based on some subjective criteria according to which they "performed good". If the team lost then they didn't perform good _enough_ to achieve the goal. Thus they failed. Thus they SHOULD be UNHAPPY about itThis is bad character in people imho. But feeling bad about failing to do your part...well ok if you go from theory to practice that is quite reasonable.
I almost always feel happy. Why should I mask unhappiness just because? Again, I'd just laugh out loud to irritate you in that situation. God if that's something that pisses me off is people trying to tell others what to do, how to feel, blah blah blah, die.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Again missing the point. I tried to define what I believe to be the characteristics of a truly winning team. You don't have to feel that way but then it is unlikely that you could be an integral part of that kind of team. Is it really that complicated? If I see winning teams with different characteristics then I re-evaluate my opinion. You seem to be awfully easily pissed off lately? Like the whole week. Either there is something not quite in place in your life atm or you are developing/showing new personal characteristicsWho are you to tell me how I should feel? This is incredibly idiotic. In spite of the irritated tone of this postSo, much worse and the real test for "team spirit" is if someone feels happy when the team loses. This feeling is usually based on some subjective criteria according to which they "performed good". If the team lost then they didn't perform good _enough_ to achieve the goal. Thus they failed. Thus they SHOULD be UNHAPPY about it
Funnily that group you mention consists of Fi and Fe types. So how can I and FDG both have Fe values if we directly conflict in this? Perhaps Fe is not as much connected to this as you try to make it be.The "emotional involvement" is basically what Expat, FDG and I are taking issue with in your posts. It's not all of what you're talking about, but it is a part of it.What is been meant by "emotionally involved" here? I can see how a Fe PoLR type wouldn't want to get emotionally involved if that means using Fe. I'm now having trouble seeing if I'm talking about that kind of involvement or not...I didn't see it that way but Expat does which kind of bugs me and leaves me a bit confused.I think the functional preference is fairly obvious when you consider Expat's comment above.
I have to think about that "emotional involvement" thing further. I didn't see what I said as emotional involvement but I might have to reconsider. I didn't think you have to resort to emotions to commit yourself like that but perhaps that is what it is about. Interesting.
Anyways it was refreshing how you brought the competition aspect into the discussion. It kind of came out of the blue but was a very good observation.
About the "why do something if it is not about winning" thing...I just generally get more motivated if I have to "win" something. I find it hard to motivate myself if there is not "adversary" or "opponent" to beat. Probably because I don't find many things "fun" as such. Perhaps I could motivate myself with other things if found them "fun". Anyways I wasn't as much commenting why my attitude makes sense in theory. It just seems a personal thing to gain motivation and increase my sometimes lacking effectiveness.
Often I can also find motivation by trying to win "myself" e.g. in sports I could try to beat some time limit etc. So the opponent doesn't have to be another human. It can be an artificial limit which I'm "fighting against". Just I need somekind of limit which I can break in order to feel I have "succeeded" or "won". Sometimes this involves competing against others and sometimes not. And generally I like to compete as team against team more than individual vs. individual but this varies a bit. I was always more fond of team sports but there are some contexts where one on one competition is interesting too. I only like to compete one on one in contexts where I'm very sure about my competence though. That is why team sports is interesting. Team mates support you in your weak areas and you can concentrate on using your strenghts. When one on one you are more often faced with your weaknesses. I would think some people prefer that environment because it requires them to beat themselves in areas where they are the weakest. So far I haven't been able to enjoy that
Or there are things on the forum that piss me off? Isn't it manipulative to just show those aspect? Saying that if one gets pissed at you is because there's something bad in his life and not because the things you say can be offensive?You seem to be awfully easily pissed off lately? Like the whole week. Either there is something not quite in place in your life atm or you are developing/showing new personal characteristics
In any case, I am one of those that prefers one on one. I can't really "get" into team dynamics easily. I try to do my best but uhm, there's some lack of connection.
"Probably because I don't find many things "fun" as such."
Aaha. Probably it boils down to this. Fun is my main motivator in life, generally.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
You have been pissed off generally lately. Even got a warning for itOr there are things on the forum that piss me off? Isn't it manipulative to just show those aspect? Saying that if one gets pissed at you is because there's something bad in his life and not because the things you say can be offensive?You seem to be awfully easily pissed off lately? Like the whole week. Either there is something not quite in place in your life atm or you are developing/showing new personal characteristicsAnd I wasn't involved in that incident. Anyways I can't understand how my opinion of what constitutes a good team can be offensive. It is just my opinion of how a team where I would like to participate should be built. Also I think it is the best way to build a team. You and others are free to build other kind of teams.
Perhaps you haven't found a right team? Then again isn't biking a team sport too at professional level? There is one guy whose job is to win and many team mates whose job is to make that guy win.
Yes. I'm in a constant lack of fun. Except when I workout or play online games (but in the latter case it is again about competing and winning). Then learning new interesting things is quite fun too but it is hard to find material which can keep my interest up for a long time. Oh and studying socionics is fun and the interest seems to last. Sometimes some movies can be extremely fun though but it is rare.
I think this captures the essence of what I would like to say. I don't know which functions are involved, but I think that I understand everything you have said about teams and team spirit, and basically you and I seem to have the exact same view on this.
To have fun!That is a good question
To me, the competition is maximizing the potential of a situation. That is the fun, that is the win / loss. Personal glory is irrelevant, it has to do with how close to 'perfection', how much potential you actualized. That is the real challenge, and I rather love it, I'm finding. Group settings - how can I accelerate the group? Personal matters -- how can I improve myself? How can I stay focused?
The challenge is exhilarating, and I find, it is my surest source of happiness. Nothing specific -- actualization of the process. Trophies and awards are secondary, and although nice, not my motivation.
Mmm, I just put in a good 2.5 hours on a group project. That feels good
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Well c'mon then, it doesn't seem like you are in constant lack of it. Many times just laughing can constitute fun.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I certainly do not ask those questions and do not take them seriously at all.
A company - as in a private company run for, yes, profit - does not and should not have "ideals" and "values". Not in the sense of a "common identity". That is all nonsense and corporate bullshit. I remember going to Procter & Gamble's European R&D center near Brussels for a meeting. There, in their reception room, they have, carved in marble, a list of their "mission statement" - "P&G is its people and the values by which we live " etc etc. Ugh - that makes me cringe. Come on -- P&G's "mission" is to "prove" to consumers that washing your clothes with Ariel is better than other washing powders. That's about it. If you agree to work there, you have to be professional and work for others in, yes, finding better ways to con consumers into thinking that one washing powder is better than others. That contributes to the company only true goal - to make a profit. And that's as it should be.
Do BP or Shell or ExxonMobil or Ford or BMW have any "values and ideals"? What could they possible be?
Or Microsoft -- does it have any ideals? Yes, now that he's richer beyond most people's imagination, Bill Gates can afford to donate his money away and I think that's laudable. But surely, especially in its beginning, to found charities and AIDS research was never part of Microsoft's "ideals".
I have worked for, or with, more than one of the companies listed in this post. I have done so to the best of my ability. That's what I do as a professional. It's also in my own interest to be seen as competent, reliable, honest, and able to contribute to a company's success. That's also in my own interest.
But please do not try to get me into any corporate or team-spirit building bullshit, especially one based on "ideals and values". That only makes me want to throw up. Just let me do my job, whether alone or, yes, in a team.
Now, if you are talking about NGOs, charities, the British RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), etc, etc -- that's something else.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
No, but this is a project's goal -- not an "ideal". It's the objective of a task, which requires professionalism, not "team spirit".
This is -- interesting.
The final objectives may be Te, which is precisely why speaking of "ideals" is simply ridiculous.
What you're saying is that you have to create some sort of Fe atmosphere in order to reach said Te goals. Which is as Fe-Ti as you can get.
Good thing I never sent Expat a copy of "The Seven Habit of Highly Effective People"
or the one about Servant Leadership either
Anyway, I'm sure most BS mission statement type things came from a sappy-assed rendition of "the invisible hand", that societies goals and what would drive the economy go hand and hand. (Yet interestingly enough, and also something Gamma's wouldn't like, is hearing how "money is the root of all evil" - and taken from its original context in the bible, I agree somewhat).
The purpose of mission statements really should be to get people involved and caring about their performance - knowing they matter. It may be sheer professionalism for some, but other types may be inherently less inclined to apply themselves in the way, or take 'the leadership challenge'.
I'm not going to say that for people like Expat and FDG mission statements and group feelings are something they should work on, no. But to say that those two concepts should be thrown out the window would also be false. I understand very well why "managers" are often "ESTjs".
I will say that if you want to have the most output from your team, the idea of "let me do my thing and leave me alone" will not work, especially if there is more than one of you on the team. And for me the best way I develop relationships is by doing stuff, so it is not realistic to say that avoiding the relational aspect of team/group interaction is something I can try to do. In most cases if I did that, the potential of the system would never be actualized - this may be because I am the only one who can see it.
PS: however, if I am in a situation where I cannot fully agree with what is going on, or the real structure or message the organization is setting, then I am much more reclusive. If I do not see a possible avenue for improvement to be made, then I will do my part and figure out how to get a more suitable environment. It is not always easy in the job world I am sure to find an organization or setting that shares 'values and beliefs' that you do, so to say. But as long as the top management trickles down a tolerable environment and fair rewards system, that's fine.
It has become apparent enough that many organizations severely limit human potential. I've got too much pride to waste my time in such situations.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
(Is XoX dual seeking - Si ?)The final objectives may be Te, which is precisely why speaking of "ideals" is simply ridiculous.
What you're saying is that you have to create some sort of Fe atmosphere in order to reach said Te goals. Which is as Fe-Ti as you can get.
For the record this is not the case at all for me. Lately I've the one who's been pushing to get things done, while others gab or become distracted.
eh, more later. I'm out of time right now.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Indirectly, you do, since that's the condition you set for working with someone if I got it right.
That is not what you're doing. You're making assumptions of how people necessarily have to feel in order to perform well, taking for granted that that's the case. This is a pure Fe-Ti concept (which is not to say that this concept is shared by all Fe-Ti people).
I'm not sure exactly how to put this, and it is more or less just speculation, but I think that a possible explanation for XoX's and my focus on "ideals", "team spirit", "common goals", etc. is that people with
You can have that sense of wholeness without being religious, and I think that the word "religious" is just misleading when we talk about INTps, but there is still some truth to what Ganin says here.
When you say that people must feel any particular way, imposed by you, as you yourself said as in "submit", of course you are talking about being emotionally involved.
I have the impression that you can't even conceive of someone committing themselves, yes, to play as much hockey as they can, and for the sake of the team, yes - without being in the emotional "team spirit". It seems to me you can't even see how that can be possible.
And to answer your question -- no, if you mean committing yourself to do your best, and yes, for the hockey team. Your problem is that you can't see committment without emotional involvement. That's the key issue here.
Just confirming what I said above.
And do you presume to know what goes through the hears and minds of all members of all teams who have won competitions? That's what you seem to be saying here.
XoX
If you are an INTp, I am a giant piece of blue cheese. Come here please and eat me.
The same goes for you, Phaedrus, of you agree with XoX here, too. Join him in his meal.
But before that -- please try to imagine that perhaps, just perhaps, what you can't see might, just might, possibly be true.
It's quite possible that you are absolutely right about everything you say about "team spirit", Expat. I am not saying that XoX's and my view on this must be the correct one. I am a dreamer, and you have more experience of what it is like to work in teams and companies than I do, so maybe I cannot imagine the kind of commitment you have in mind.
But all that is beside the point here. The most relevant thing is that both XoX and I seem to think along very similar lines and share the same kind of attitude towards this. And that is a STRONG argument for the hypothesis that XoX is an INTp, since we know that I am an INTp.
So, what kind of blue cheese are you, Expat? And what are your wine preferences, XoX? What do you think, could we try a Barolo, or maybe an Amarone of some sort? It has to be a really good wine, anyway, if we are going to have a moderator at the table ...
My commitment is simply -- you agree to do a job, you do it professionally which means giving your best and being honest with your colleagues, regarless of any "team spirit". Now, some people may indeed need to "submit" to "team spirit" - that's precisely why this idea even exists - but I'm not one of them, and that's my point, and my only isse with XoX's views is that he can't conceive that people may not need this "submission" in order to give their best.
Or that you are both INFps, albeit in the Ni end of the scale, a possibilty you've also acknowledged. Or that regardless of this, you are of different types -- I really avoid the "comparison" method, except for VI where of course it's all but unavoidable.
I think it's far more likely that I am not a piece of blue cheese --So, what kind of blue cheese are you, Expat? And what are your wine preferences, XoX? What do you think, could we try a Barolo, or maybe an Amarone of some sort? It has to be a really good wine, anyway, if we are going to have a moderator at the table ...
Now which quadra could that possibly be? Let me think, let me think --- hmm ---
Hah...yesssssss....I hope he is a low-carb mealIt's quite possible that you are absolutely right about everything you say about "team spirit", Expat. I am not saying that XoX's and my view on this must be the correct one. I am a dreamer, and you have more experience of what it is like to work in teams and companies than I do, so maybe I cannot imagine the kind of commitment you have in mind.
But all that is beside the point here. The most relevant thing is that both XoX and I seem to think along very similar lines and share the same kind of attitude towards this. And that is a STRONG argument for the hypothesis that XoX is an INTp, since we know that I am an INTp.
So, what kind of blue cheese are you, Expat? And what are your wine preferences, XoX? What do you think, could we try a Barolo, or maybe an Amarone of some sort? It has to be a really good wine, anyway, if we are going to have a moderator at the table ...
Some comments about the other comments...there must still be some kind of gap of understanding because I find the things attributed to me not perfectly describing me and the interpretations of my opinions to not be quite what I meant. It is hard to explain but somehow I come across differently than what I intended to articulate.
About the mission statements and such. To me they are a tool to make huge organizations to commit to common goals. There is really nothing idealistic about this. If you have let's say 50.000 people and you want them to work as a "team" meaning that you can really utilize their cumulative competence in an optimal way you have to communicate the goals and targets to them in a way which makes them not go against each other but towards the direction where the leadership wants them to go. Leading a big organization (which doesn't work like an army does) is all about communication. You can't force skilled professionals to do anything. Instead you try to utilize different means of mass communication like mission and vision statements and company values and such in order to lead them where you want them to go. It is a hell of a difficult job and gets more difficult the bigger the organization is and the less hierarchy there is in the "chain of command".
So company mission, vision, values and such are just the current trend in leadership. Perhaps they will be later replaced with something else which works better. Perhaps a more hierachical and structured, "army style", leadership is adopted again like it used to be before the "information age". Perhaps some new approach can be developed. There is nothing idealistic about this. It is just about best tools and methods to make the company produce optimal results. "The best practice" or "The state of the art of leadership". There is really nothing more to it. I still fail to see how this is necessarily Fe>Te.
Your view on commitment is no different from other real life ENTjs. I think I can understand it, but even though I don't necessarily disagre with your view, we work in different ways due to our different temperaments.
I probably can't decide with absolute certainty that my intertype relations do not fit the hypothesis that I am an INFp, but I know for sure that I don't fit the INFp type descriptions, whereas the INTp type descriptions fit me perfectly. I can accept that XoX could be an INFp, but after all that has been discussed about his type, I find it very hard to believe that he can be any other type than either INTp or INFp. The only other type that could make some sort of sense is ENTp, since some ENTps are confused about their extraversion and can't see that they don't fit INTP/INTp type descriptions.Or that you are both INFps, albeit in the Ni end of the scale, a possibilty you've also acknowledged. Or that regardless of this, you are of different types -- I really avoid the "comparison" method, except for VI where of course it's all but unavoidable.
both phaddy and xox are istjs. end of story.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
The concept is extremely Fe>Fi and Ti>Te. The way you take for granted that people need to be "emotionally coached" or, if you will, "motivated" and that's the way people necessarily react -- that's a Ti-Fe vision. Yes, if this kind of approach is seen to work most efficiently, it is indeed also Te to employ it. But that's not what I am seeing. What I am seeing is that you, yourself, for yourself, thoroughly identify with it as the "natural order of things".
Lol. We once thought about that did we. I might sound like ISTj occasionally with my stubborn rants but I think I'm too "out there" and theoretical to be one. You never know of course. Then the ENFjs would never accept that, lol.
I think it very obviously is connected to Fe.
As for you and FDG conflicting *shrug*. Here we go for the "comparison" thingy again. I would like to see a better argument.
But here are some possibilities --
1) FDG is not really a Fe type
2) He is an ESTp and a Fe type but his Ti has a concept that this kind of emotional "submission" is an intrinsically limiting thing if he's made aware of it - it is the "freedom-limiting" aspect he most objects to rather than Fe>Fi as such
I'd say that this might make me consider an alpha quadra (democratic) type, more than a serious (objectivist) type (which I really think I'm not)I think it very obviously is connected to Fe.
As for you and FDG conflicting *shrug*. Here we go for the "comparison" thingy again. I would like to see a better argument.
But here are some possibilities --
1) FDG is not really a Fe type
I also think that, if we want to take it to the "mysticism" level, both me and expat are likely old souls and XoX and Phaedrus mature souls.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Except that I am born in Pisces, which is considered to be the oldest of the star signs in the zodiac. The soul of a Piscean is said to have been reborn many, many times ...
Still, your perispective is what is karmically associated with mature more so than old. Obviously your actual stances count much more in determining this than your astrological sign.Except that I am born in Pisces, which is considered to be the oldest of the star signs in the zodiac. The soul of a Piscean is said to have been reborn many, many times ...
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
You just managed to drop Expat from the discussion, lol.Still, your perispective is what is karmically associated with mature more so than old. Obviously your actual stances count much more in determining this than your astrological sign.Except that I am born in Pisces, which is considered to be the oldest of the star signs in the zodiac. The soul of a Piscean is said to have been reborn many, many times ...
Anyways I don't believe in incarnation and such but I have a sort of home-grown mystique in very extended family who likes to go to India and hangs in circles where these kind of things are discussed seriously and she (apparently INFp) thinks my wife is definately an old soul. She didn't say anything about me but apparently she thinks we are not similar in this this soul matter. That's all I know about the subject at the moment. At least I'm unlikely an old soul.
I don't exactly belive in that stuff. It's more thrown in a limbo of things that are "useful to explain some things" but "unverifiable".You just managed to drop Expat from the discussion, lol.Still, your perispective is what is karmically associated with mature more so than old. Obviously your actual stances count much more in determining this than your astrological sign.Except that I am born in Pisces, which is considered to be the oldest of the star signs in the zodiac. The soul of a Piscean is said to have been reborn many, many times ...
Anyways I don't believe in incarnation and such but I have a sort of home-grown mystique in very extended family who likes to go to India and hangs in circles where these kind of things are discussed seriously and she (apparently INFp) thinks my wife is definately an old soul. She didn't say anything about me but apparently she thinks we are not similar in this this soul matter. That's all I know about the subject at the moment. At least I'm unlikely an old soul.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Ok, perhaps Fe is related to what I say. You seem pretty consistent in your analysis which is not really an argument but makes is hard to discard what you say as false. And you have been consistent over quite a long period of time.
Anyways, one of the problems I have with this "seeming conflict of values" is that I could very well see myself working in a project managed by Expat and be happy about it. So perhaps these differences only exist on paper e.g. because we interpret the meaning of the concepts we use very differently (e.g. what does "team spirit" really mean). On paper we seem to conflict a lot value-wise but my intuitive sense is that I wouldn't conflict with your leadership methods much in real life team setting (however you might conflict with my methods, it might be asymmetric, who knows).
Yes, that is the point from my perspective as well.Phaedrus is apparently an ILI supporting a Fe-Ti concept, therefore others supporting a Fe-Ti concept must also be ILI! Quadra values are obviously a load of crap.
We have two lines of reasoning going on:
1) Phaedrus is INTp ----> Phaedrus and XoX think along very similar lines on this ----> hence XoX is INTp
2) XoX's concept - especially since it is so obviously obvious to him - is clearly Fe-Ti -------> hence XoX is of a Fe-Ti quadra -----> Pheadrus agrees with it -----> so ditto for Phaedrus
My problem with (1) is the very concept of typing by similarities (or lack thereof), (2) the concept of type descriptions overruling clear quadra values understanding.
The problem with (2) - for some people - seems to be a lack of understanding as to why that concept is so obviously Fe-Ti in the first place.
Some people find it motivating and comforting to be a part of a "team spirit." Others work best when they are independent and have the freedom to do (and feel) as they deem best. I don't think either way is "wrong," despite the strong feelings involved.
Everyone here has at least a passing interest in Socionics, right? If nothing else, Socionics says that there are people who are different from us, who have different motivations and ways of approaching the world. So, in this case, I don't think it appropriate to call anybody's tendencies and preferences "bullshit."
When I'm in some sort of group that's working together, I like to get an idea of how the people involved are, what makes them tick. Whatever makes them happy to work, I try to encourage. If they like being a part of a "team," then, when I can, I try to give them that feeling. If they like to be independent, then I try to give them their space to work (while at the same time showing appreciation for what they do).
Personally, I tend to work according to my personal goals. If the group's stated goals match mine, all the better. If some of the "mission statements" weren't mine originally, but I think they're good ideas, then I'll sort of add them to mine. But it's not something I pay a whole lot of attention to. At the same time, I do enjoy having a sense of goodwill and camaraderie among the people I'm working with. I don't really require it, per se, but I find it hard to work in a place where there's the opposite, antagonism and infighting.
Er, those are some of my thoughts on the matter.
Oh, and what does that make me? Still Fi>Fe? After all, I do understand and empathize with Xox's point of view, even though I tend to behave on the more independent side of things.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
The problem with dismissing type descriptions is that they generally paint a similar view of type with some variation on details. What you are saying is pretty much that all those type descriptions are crap (even though mutually quite consistent) and interpret socionics in a wrong way. Instead your interpretation and type descriptions give the right intepretation even if it conflicts with all the other type descriptions. Now you can always say that I misinterpret your descriptions or the other type descriptions or both but this is a bit hard to verify atm. Another option is that all those other type descriptions are using a same faulty source or circlularly refer to each other and repeat each other's mistakes. Otherwise it is hard to see how can they paint such a consistent but false picture.Yes, that is the point from my perspective as well.Phaedrus is apparently an ILI supporting a Fe-Ti concept, therefore others supporting a Fe-Ti concept must also be ILI! Quadra values are obviously a load of crap.
We have two lines of reasoning going on:
1) Phaedrus is INTp ----> Phaedrus and XoX think along very similar lines on this ----> hence XoX is INTp
2) XoX's concept - especially since it is so obviously obvious to him - is clearly Fe-Ti -------> hence XoX is of a Fe-Ti quadra -----> Pheadrus agrees with it -----> so ditto for Phaedrus
My problem with (1) is the very concept of typing by similarities (or lack thereof), (2) the concept of type descriptions overruling clear quadra values understanding.
The problem with (2) - for some people - seems to be a lack of understanding as to why that concept is so obviously Fe-Ti in the first place.
Because that analysis is central to my understanding of what makes the functions what they are and the types what they are, as well as the quadras.
No, I disagree. It's not a difference of interpretations at all. It's much, much deeper, and it's very revealing that you don't see what is it that we find so disturbing.
If you'd work for me, I would expect you to do what we've agreed to do and if you have a problem in doing it, be straightforward as to what your problem is - in terms of a question, the time needed, etc. Things of the sort. I'd expect you to share any information you think might be useful for both of us (and the rest of the team), and you could expect the same of me. You could expect understanding as to reasonable mistakes, delays, even personal problems. You could expect me to tell you well in advance what is it about your job that I may be finding less than satisfactory, rather than keep it for myself for months and then use it to give you a crappy appraisal. I would never do that. And I would expect you to give your best.
What you could never expect from me is how to "motivate" you as to why you should be giving your best at work and why you should be straightforward with me. What we both agreed to do, we do, and if that agreement requires change, we change it together.
But your emotional need to feel that you are in a "winning team" in order to do your job well is not my concern nor my responsibility. If you need this kind of thing, I'd say, then get a grip anyway, or go work for someone else. If I had been put in charge of a project that I know is probably going to fail - as has happened several times - I would never lie and say "I think it's going to be a brilliant success". I would say, "look, if you ask my honest opinion as to the chances of this succeeding, I'll say, not good. But I may be wrong, and it's our job to give our best and to what we possibly can to make it work. Think of it as a challenge, if you want".
Basically, what you can expect from me is straightforwardness. What you can't, ever, expect is bullshit.
I don't disagree with anything in this. I'm not sure what that means. And I do understand that people have different needs and that teams and work habbits can take different forms. I was just stressing what I see as the "theoretically most efficient team". You see this kind of teams often winning big championships e.g. in team sports setting.Some people find it motivating and comforting to be a part of a "team spirit." Others work best when they are independent and have the freedom to do (and feel) as they deem best. I don't think either way is "wrong," despite the strong feelings involved.
Everyone here has at least a passing interest in Socionics, right? If nothing else, Socionics says that there are people who are different from us, who have different motivations and ways of approaching the world. So, in this case, I don't think it appropriate to call anybody's tendencies and preferences "bullshit."
When I'm in some sort of group that's working together, I like to get an idea of how the people involved are, what makes them tick. Whatever makes them happy to work, I try to encourage. If they like being a part of a "team," then, when I can, I try to give them that feeling. If they like to be independent, then I try to give them their space to work (while at the same time showing appreciation for what they do).
Personally, I tend to work according to my personal goals. If the group's stated goals match mine, all the better. If some of the "mission statements" weren't mine originally, but I think they're good ideas, then I'll sort of add them to mine. But it's not something I pay a whole lot of attention to. At the same time, I do enjoy having a sense of goodwill and camaraderie among the people I'm working with. I don't really require it, per se, but I find it hard to work in a place where there's the opposite, antagonism and infighting.
Er, those are some of my thoughts on the matter.
Oh, and what does that make me? Still Fi>Fe? After all, I do understand and empathize with Xox's point of view, even though I tend to behave on the more independent side of things.
The claim wasn't that all teams should be like this. Also I don't claim all people fit or should fit into these kind of teams. I claimed that such a team is the most effective team you can possibly construct but it is only for those people who wish to be in such a team. Others can work independently or be a part of different kind of team with differing values.
When I see teams with other kind of personal and team "values" or "spirit" win big championships or otherwise hear a good argument why I'm wrong I reconsider my position. I only stand by my opinion because I currently see it as the truth. If that condition no longer exists I change my opinion.
And lastly I don't wish to offend anyone and in real life setting I wouldn't voice my opinions this "loud" or sound as judgmental (hopefully
Minde, I agree with Isha
The difference is this: you understand that others are different, and XoX clearly said that the only way to achieve best result is to submit yourself to the emotional concept of the "team spirit". That's the difference.
No.
First, they are not so consistent, that is precisely why people - including you - keep reading several versions of them. Yes, someone's ESFp description will not resemble someone else's INTj one, but for more similar types there is considerable confusion.
Second, I did not say that "all type descriptions are crap". I think that if you do understand them, the best ones are indeed very helpful in finding your type. But what I see is people identifying with - or, most often, dismissing - types based on details in descriptions that are not essential to what makes the type what is. Even if it were true that most INFps could be seen as "romantic", your not seeing yourself as "romantic" is not, necessarily, a definite argument that you're not an INFp.
That is the sort of thing I mean.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote