How are you ever going to get this kind of information? Do you really know what goes in the heads of those people playing in hockey teams?Originally Posted by XoX
How are you ever going to get this kind of information? Do you really know what goes in the heads of those people playing in hockey teams?
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
XoX, I understand that and was in fact attempting to validate your feelings on the subject. Unless I've misread things, all I've really seen you say is how you'd personally prefer it and describing how you perceive things as working best, not how you think everyone should behave. And I think it's good that you freely express what you think. As Expat said, it's enlightening. So you're just fine by me. Actually, I think that it's just as bad to deprive someone who works as you do of their "team spirit" as it is to force that spirit on someone who doesn't like it. Both can be destructive.
Minde, I agree with Isha.
Well, if the main difference is that one appears to have an open perspective and the other doesn't, then perhaps it doesn't have as much to do with Fe v. Fi? And, um, this is an honest question - not trying to bait you or anything.
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.
I'll take that as a compliment.Minde, you embody.
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.
That's not what XoX said about "team spirit". What he was saying is that you have to feel like being part of the team emotionally is more important than your individual emotions (which is not the same as being a "free raider" or "leecher") otherwise the team can't work well.
I'm not quite sure what you disagree with and find disturbing. I still think there is a weird misunderstanding somewhere.
What could possibly be a problem with this? Should I now somehow disagree with this? If you expect me to disagree with your methods I can't possibly understand why would you think that. I don't have any problems with you being straighforward unless you do it in a backstabbing way e.g. in a meeting with customers or a higher boss say something like "well we would have already done it but now we are lacking behind the schedule because that guy over there made us fail". That would show bad "team spirit" (I should stop using that word really) and lack of leadership responsibility. I might initially have some problems with being straighforward myself because it lead me to conflict with my ENTp boss who apparently just wanted to hear what a great boss he is (hidden agenda??). I think in a team culture where straighforwadness is promoted I would get used to being more straightforward myself too.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that you should motivate me? It is more like you should not dismotivate me by doing a crappy job at leading the team. If you stick to what you said in the previous section and enforce that policy consistency to all team members I don't see how this kind of situation would happen. I don't need anyone to motivate me nor do I react positively to such attempts. However it is not hard to dismotivate me by consistently enforcing leadership decisions which I completely disapprove.
Your concern is to run the team in such a way that it gives me the impression that we can successfully compete against any other team out there. If I come to conclusion that the team is run in such a way which makes us uncompetitive then that makes me feel I'm not in a winning team and slowly kills my motivation. It makes me feel I'm in a sinking ship. Another thing that would bother me is lack of openness where you put different team members in unfair position by promoting some and dismissing some based on some subjective criteria. Or if you use some kind of "divide and conquer" tactics and make the team members compete against each other in unhealthy ways. I need unity in the team not division even though some healthy competition might be useful. There are clear limits to this though.
I explained what I need. I'm not sure where we stand in this now.
If you said it was going to be a brilliant success when it clearly is not it would make me doubt your abilities as a leader. Even though this kind of motivation might be needed when you talk to 50.000 people or to a whole country it is definately not needed in a smaller team where interaction is personal and not "mass media" interaction.
I actually get motivated by situations you describe because it gives a chance to beat impossible odds. What could be more fulfilling. However if you come and say "This is an impossible project and it will fail so don't even bother trying" then that would be highly unmotivating. Or if some team mates would not give their best because they think it would be futile. You should make the team work as if there is a chance to succeed. Not by saying "this will be a brilliant success" but by saying "We have zero chance. We are totally fucked. We are still going to do whatever we can to win. And if we fail..well shit happens...but at least we get paid well".
Why would I want bullshit from someone? Wouldn't that be contradictory by definition.
Anyways, what I meant by asymmetry is that my team leading habbits probably would annoy you more than yours would mine. I don't see anything annoying in your practices so far but I acknowledge that I probably could not be such a leader which I want other people to be. I would need more consistency and "toughness" in my actions. This is why I still have a long road ahead in developing myself.
I don't think so.
See below. It's obvious.
I don't care about giving anyone the "impression of being competitve". I don't see why a team has to be seen as "competing against any other team". Does an engineering team has to be seen as "competing" against another engineering team?
As far as I am concerned you can feel your are in a sinking ship as much as you like or need to -- it may even be true, perhaps the whole company is indeed a sinking ship. I've worked in a few. You can feel demotivated all you like, I don't care. Your feelings are your own business. You can even hate me. You can say, "I hate you, boss". That is fine with lme. But let that affect your performance, or your ethics, and then I will have a problem with that.
This is what I meant with bullshit:
No, my concern is to make the team achieve what has been agreed, not to "compete against any other team". At work, we work towards a goal. We compete, as a company, against competitors. Other teams are either our allies or of no particular concern.
I'm not sure I quite understand your point here.That's not what XoX said about "team spirit". What he was saying is that you have to feel like being part of the team emotionally is more important than your individual emotions (which is not the same as being a "free raider" or "leecher") otherwise the team can't work well.
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.
Of course I don't believe in incarnations either, at least not as an INTp ... I think astrology is bullshit; there is no scientific evidence of any kind that shows that there is any truth in it, despite the many attempts that have been made to prove it. Neither do I believe in the existence of souls, but that is a much more complicated matter that has already been discussed in a couple of threads on this forum.
In a weak moment, though, I once promised Sergei Ganin that I would start to believe in astrology if he or someone else could prove that I am an INFp. So, there is still a slight chance that I might change my mind ...
I'm pointing out that what you mentioned about "not infighting" etc is not really the issue as far as I am concerned. Of course people won't like infighting.I'm not sure I quite understand your point here.
And XoX, I'd like a comment on thisHow are you ever going to get this kind of information? Do you really know what goes in the heads of those people playing in hockey teams?
I think so too. I don't know where it comes from, but I agree with XoX's perspective, which is very easy for me to understand and identify with, but at the same time I cannot find anything substantial in what Expat says to disagree with either.I'm not quite sure what you disagree with and find disturbing. I still think there is a weird misunderstanding somewhere.
If the reasoning along line 1 is not valid, then the reasoning along line 2 is not valid either. This illustrates the limitations of functional typings based on what values and functions someone is perceived to be expressing, becuase the assumption that we can type XoX as an Fe-Ti type of some sort is falsified by the fact that I would also be typed as belonging to the same group, and yet I am an INTp. So, apparently an INTp can express such values and functions (assuming that they are correctly identified).
I already understood that distinction, but thank you for pointing it out.
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.
When it gets to that it's just a waste of time. I'll put up with it for a little bit, but I never sign up for something where I have to play the role of kindergarten-teacher-who-has-to-deal-with-the-bad-kids.
In other words, if people have no desire to grow up and be mature on their own, so be it - I would much rather spend my time with people who know how to drop their petty attitudes at the door.
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.
.
No. You are missing the point. He says that if you want to be a member of his team, then you should feel a certain way, have a certain attitude. You don't have to join the team if you don't want to. It's all up to you.You're making judgments about someone's character because they don't want to do the whole team thing?
I think you can compare the situation with the critique that has been directed against Reuben McNew. In a sense this forum can be seen as a sort of "team" (in a very loose sense of course). In the same manner that Reuben is entitled (within certain limits that are set by societal laws and regulations etc) to set up his own rules for this forum, XoX is entitled to "dictate" what people should feel if they want to be members of his team. He can decide almost anything he wants. For example, he could decide that the team should exist of only men, or only women, that every player in the team has to have read hair, or anything else that might be totally irrational seen from an objective perspective. But unless he forces people to join his team, what is wrong with that? A team is like a club, it doesn't have to follow rules against discrimination and such things (but it all depends on the purpose of the team, and there might be laws and regulations that the team must follow in order to exist as an agent in society).
There is nothing wrong with that at all. But that is not the issue here. No one should be part of a team except by free choice. Everyone is free to form their own teams. Or not join any team.
I didn't say the team can't work well. The claim could perhaps be better interpreted like "if two teams with similar skill level play against each other the one with stronger team spirit has the advantage". Something like that. Thus it follows that to aim for optimal performance you need to include team spirit into the equation.That's not what XoX said about "team spirit". What he was saying is that you have to feel like being part of the team emotionally is more important than your individual emotions (which is not the same as being a "free raider" or "leecher") otherwise the team can't work well.
Then another thing worth pointing out is that I'm not really talking about "emotionally" bonding with the team members but more about committing to the team goal. If the goal is winning the championship then you commit to that. That's why I somehow dislike the word "emotion" because I'm not really talking about emotional bonds between people or something like that. Even though I admit that e.g. in sports or war movies this "team spirit" is often pictured as a rather emotional thing. I'm trying to reinvent the wording slightly to see if that will change anything.
I don't see any Fe in that at all.I didn't say the team can't work well. The claim could perhaps be better interpreted like "if two teams with similar skill level play against each other the one with stronger team spirit has the advantage". Something like that. Thus it follows that to aim for optimal performance you need to include team spirit into the equation.That's not what XoX said about "team spirit". What he was saying is that you have to feel like being part of the team emotionally is more important than your individual emotions (which is not the same as being a "free raider" or "leecher") otherwise the team can't work well.
Then another thing worth pointing out is that I'm not really talking about "emotionally" bonding with the team members but more about committing to the team goal. If the goal is winning the championship then you commit to that. That's why I somehow dislike the word "emotion" because I'm not really talking about emotional bonds between people or something like that. Even though I admit that e.g. in sports or war movies this "team spirit" is often pictured as a rather emotional thing. I'm trying to reinvent the wording slightly to see if that will change anything.
Well I have played in hockey and soccer teams so I have personal experience from "spirited" and "spiritless" teams. My personal opinion is that it makes a big difference. It cannot of course replace skill but it complements it and enforces it.And XoX, I'd like a comment on thisHow are you ever going to get this kind of information? Do you really know what goes in the heads of those people playing in hockey teams?
Then I have watched e.g. Finnish national hockey teams over 15 year period. There have been good. There have been bad. Common thing about the good teams is that a) they have good players and b) they have great spirit. This spirit can be perceived from how they generally interact, how they "radiate" it, how they talk about it (implicitly and explicitly), how sports analysts and such people explicitly notice it and so on. It is not an exact science of course so feel free to criticize.
Then it is also a national Finnish thing. We fought two wars against Soviet Union in WW2 only barely managing to keep our independence against that mammoth. First of the wars was called "Winter War" and a term called "Winter War Spirit" was made famous during that time. "Winter War Spirit" means incredible level of national unity which was seen at all fronts (home front and war front) and is generally credited as being one of the fundamental reasons our nation and army didn't totally collapse in the arms of the Big Bear. All nation was unified under the common goal of survival which produced unseen level of unity, fortitude, sacrifice and heroism.
"Winter War Spirit" is also credited by enabling the enormous rebuilding effort which raised the country from the brink of collapse to a wealthy industrial nation. This concept is slowly losing its meaning for the younger generation though (which is generally seen as alarming by the older generation because for older generation it still means a lot). It means much even to my generation. Since quite young I have read books about it, seen movies about it, done the mandatory military service where I heard a lot about it and was "trained" in it. And so on. Perhaps the spirit is just an invention of the leaders and it never really existed. Perhaps it is just a legend. Anyways I have been trained to accept that it did exist and is the reason why the country still stands and I even exist (lol). I think this kind of national heritage might affect my opinion on this matter (or it might just reinforce some already existing socionics related bias).
Too damn many posts to answer, lol. I have to do some real work too
Well I think I slowly fall back to my typing thread...there is some material here which perhaps should be exported there too.
And I still have Reinin dichotomies and some type descriptions to go through...
Lol. I couldn't drop it just yet. One more thing came to mind..
In this thread two different statements have been presented:
1) "People who want team spirit don't belong in my team"
2) "People who don't want team spirit don't belong in my team"
Why is the second one seen as offensive and the first one not? Personally I don't see either one offensive. They are just diffent POVs. Sort of opposite management styles/views. Some clarification needed here...
I have sensed that same type of thing, a sort of positive or negative atmosphere, that has an effect on how well a group of people working on a project do, whether the project succeeds. In some cases that atmosphere is more important than in others (non-profit v. for profit, for example, or a sports team). And, obviously, some people have a greater sense of or value for that atmosphere than others. That does not negate its presence and/or importance to those that do notice it.
From what I've observed, the quality of that atmosphere is the sum of the member's attitudes toward what they are doing. Some people have a greater role than others in setting the tone, it's true, and it's usually based on their visibility level. And, also, not everyone has to be aware of the atmosphere to contribute to it. Regardless of how they see it, individual's actions and attitudes do have a bearing on overall tone. And that tone, in some cases, not all, does have an effect on how well a group succeeds (depending on the contextual definition of success, of course).
Like XoX, I have seen this in action. Actually, it's sort of an automatic thing when I go places where there are people to just observe interactions, mostly using body language/cues, but also inflection, vocal tone, etc. I find it enjoyable to pick up on the various, um, story-lines. And these story-lines often lead to the overall feeling of the place. Anyway, for example, when working in a large office setting, I can usually tell differences between atmospheres on different floor levels. Not that I can always put the differences into words, but I know they're there. Also, I've been known to call various team sport games, just by watching each team's body language on the playing field, without knowing ahead of time the score or skill ranking of the team.
Now, none of this is to say that people are required to feel any way other than how they want to feel. Or that every member of a group has to subscribe to a group philosophy, mission, commitment, or otherwise. Or that one's main focus can't be on personal performance and achievement. Or anything like that.
As far as I can tell, all it means is that this is something that is important to some people. And since it's important to some, it therefore has at least some bearing on the population as a whole. Which means that it's good to know about and to take into account when dealing with people on a group-level basis.
In addition to the idea of "atmosphere" there's also the tension between individualism and collectivism. Again, some people are more comfortable with one than the other. It's two different ways of seeing the world and interacting with people, not one "good" way and one "bad" way. If everyone involved is contributing the best that they can, I don't see how it makes a difference if they're doing it for the team as a whole or for their own personal gratification.
So, to me, it's not so much about what's supposed to happen as about what exists, how things (people) work. And I'll say again that this is just how I see things, not necessarily how anybody else sees it.
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.
I find Xox's posts very useful here. I do not think I understood until now why working as a team was so important to some people including my ESFJ manager. Words like "team" and "group work" have long been words that evoke a sense of great psychological discomfort for me. IMO, people should be motivated enough to show up at work, do their part more or less on an independent basis and then go home, I guess my views on this more resembles Expat's.
Teamworking and the "team building" week-ends I have been near "forced" to participate in sucks big time for me but at least I can now see why it is so important for some people.
Socionics: XNFx
MBTI: INFJ
That is interesting as it is coming from a possible Fe-type (even though a Ni-subtype apparently).
I need to mention here that even though the concept of "team" is important to me I dislike any kind of mandatory outside of work "happenings" or artificial team building like "team building weekends". This is not at ALL what I mean. You cannot force "team spirit" by some happening. Just wanted to say to avoid further confusion. I couldn't care less about any kind of "emotional bonding event" that the company throws. Team spirit comes from within not from any event. Of course if some natural bonding happens it can increase the "spirits" but this is different.
Secondly I disagree with combining team-orientation and motivational problems that way. I did talk about lowered motivation if you have to work in a team which is not functioning as effectively as it could. This should be interpreted more as irritation about the inefficiencies inherent in that kind of approach. Then "team spirit" and such is not related to whether most of your work consists of working physically alone or not etc. You don't have to work hand in hand to be a team. "Team spirit" is an abstract mental concept which does not imply much about physical work arrangements.
I want to make a poll about thisThe point is not that either of them are inherently offensive, but that in this matter personal preference indicates functional preference.
It is like Isha said, neither is necessarily offensive, it is maybe even a great quality to enjoy and be successfully able to work in a close team. I think if you benefit from or like team spirit then you should find a place to work with a team that is right for you. What I find offensive and even parasitic is people pushing the whole team work/team spirit thing on people like myself who just do not like or appreciate it and who do not work as well in that sort of situation.
Socionics: XNFx
MBTI: INFJ
First, the very idea that people should "feel" a certain way - as a concept - is what's unattractive to some people here.No. You are missing the point. He says that if you want to be a member of his team, then you should feel a certain way, have a certain attitude. You don't have to join the team if you don't want to. It's all up to you.You're making judgments about someone's character because they don't want to do the whole team thing?
As I said, you work for me, you can hate me. That's ok. You can hate your colleagues, too. Fine. I don't care. But if you act on that hatred - as in letting it affect your work, or your integrity - then you're toast as far as I am concerned. Not before.
And yes, as Diana said, the idea of making judgements on people based on their feelings about team spirit.
This forum has rules as to people's actions, not to people's feelings.
The very idea that what people should feel can be dictated is, to me, intrinsically repulsive.
More than this, it's actually completely impossible. Only somebody as nuts and as socially incapable as phaedrus and as autistic as him could think about this possibility.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
The thing is here:I don't see any Fe in that at all.I didn't say the team can't work well. The claim could perhaps be better interpreted like "if two teams with similar skill level play against each other the one with stronger team spirit has the advantage". Something like that. Thus it follows that to aim for optimal performance you need to include team spirit into the equation.That's not what XoX said about "team spirit". What he was saying is that you have to feel like being part of the team emotionally is more important than your individual emotions (which is not the same as being a "free raider" or "leecher") otherwise the team can't work well.
Then another thing worth pointing out is that I'm not really talking about "emotionally" bonding with the team members but more about committing to the team goal. If the goal is winning the championship then you commit to that. That's why I somehow dislike the word "emotion" because I'm not really talking about emotional bonds between people or something like that. Even though I admit that e.g. in sports or war movies this "team spirit" is often pictured as a rather emotional thing. I'm trying to reinvent the wording slightly to see if that will change anything.
That's not really a distinction - it's a straw man argument.
It's like my saying, "you don't want to work for me, you don't have to, I'm not forcing you. If you work for me, you have to perform and be honest - you can't do that, work elsewhere, fine".
So your saying "you don't HAVE to feel that way" does not help the discussion at all, which is about your priorities. I don't care about what people feel, you do. That's the difference.
In an ideal world, yes. But in real corporations, your career can be ruined by evaluations like "he's not a team player, I don't want him in my team" and that's what I have to conclude XoX would do.
And yes, I would kick someone out of my team due to his/her performance. XoX would do that due to his/her feelings. That's what it boils down to.
That's a distinction without a difference. You are focusing on very specific wordings, when the sense is exactly the same.I didn't say the team can't work well. The claim could perhaps be better interpreted like "if two teams with similar skill level play against each other the one with stronger team spirit has the advantage". Something like that. Thus it follows that to aim for optimal performance you need to include team spirit into the equation.That's not what XoX said about "team spirit". What he was saying is that you have to feel like being part of the team emotionally is more important than your individual emotions (which is not the same as being a "free raider" or "leecher") otherwise the team can't work well.
That's precisely where your views are different from XoX's, only you're not seeing it.
On the implications for functional preference, I see it's more complicated than just Fe-Fi distinction.
I can't see how a Fi quadra type would subscribe to the idea that feelings can and should be dictated. Especially due to this -- what it leads to is hypocrisy. Phaedrus, XoX, so how people should feel can be "dictated". So you really think you can totally know how someone is feeling?
However, it seems that being a Fe quadra type does not necessarily mean subscribing to XoX's views (nor had I expected that to be the case
What I would find very suprising is if a clear Fi quadra type would totally subscribe to XoX's interpretation of "team spirit" and the need for such a "team spirit" for a team to give its best -- let alone to his view that, in order to feel motivated, he has to view his team as "winning" in relation to others.
Well, right now I am more inclined to think you're not an INTp, IF we are all discussing the same concepts.If the reasoning along line 1 is not valid, then the reasoning along line 2 is not valid either. This illustrates the limitations of functional typings based on what values and functions someone is perceived to be expressing, becuase the assumption that we can type XoX as an Fe-Ti type of some sort is falsified by the fact that I would also be typed as belonging to the same group, and yet I am an INTp. So, apparently an INTp can express such values and functions (assuming that they are correctly identified).
Yes, and I'm not advocating that it should dictate people's feelings.
Yes, you said in the beginning of this thread that
and maybe that is clouding your judgment as to what XoX is trying to say here.
Yes, that's a difference in attitude and maybe even strategy between you and XoX, but there is no difference in principle between your perspective and XoX's here. In fact, you are just advocating another kind "team spirit". You want people not to care about team spirit, not to care about how you feel. You prefer that people adopt the same professional attitude as you have yourself, and maybe that really is the best strategy for a team to work effectively.
But that is still beside the point. You are both proponents of your own view on how a team should work to function in the most effective way. XoX have a certain view on how a group of people should think and feel to get the best result. You have another view on that. I see no reason why that necessarily must indicate a quadra preference. What you exhibit when you express your feelings and views on how you want to work in a team is foremost a strong preference for the ETj approach to doing things, for example here:
And you are clearly missing XoX's point. XoX is making a general point from a general, game-theoretical perspective, but you insist on seeing the whole thing from the perspective of a specific, concrete situation where you yourself are (hypothetically) involved. If anything, that only shows that you might have some problems with the fact that people are different and sometimes prefer to work in totally different ways.
An analogy to some of the things said in this thread is to think of religious groups. To be a true Christian, to be a true member of that "team", you have to have certain attitudes, certain feelings, a certain "spirit". For example, you can't be a true Christian if you don't believe in the existence of God. And you are not allowed to believe that God is the most immoral, repulsive, sadistic person that has ever existed, and that it is everyone's moral duty to stone anyone to death who doesn't believe that God is that way. If you have those feelings and think in that way, you are not a Christian.
Personally I don't want to belong to that group, but of course they must have those restrictions on what I and others are allowed to believe and feel. They might accept me as a member of their team even if I don't believe in God, and maybe even if I think that he is a horrible person (or entity, or whatever), or that Christians in general are brainwashed. But if I start to take such feelings and beliefs seriously and begin to act determinately in order to destroy the whole Christian community, they probably would kick me out of the team. And seen from their perspective, they are of course entitled to do that. And even if I don't decide to act on my convictions, I am still not a "true member" of the Christian team if I don't think and feel in a certain way.
XoX has described the conditions he sees as essential for a membership in an optimally functioning team (or something like that). You may have a different view on that, but this is not about personal opinions. It is about facts. We can investigate what constitutes an optimal team scientifically, and there is an objectively correct answer to the question how teams should be put together and function.
1. We are probably not discussing the exact same concepts.Well, right now I am more inclined to think you're not an INTp, IF we are all discussing the same concepts.If the reasoning along line 1 is not valid, then the reasoning along line 2 is not valid either. This illustrates the limitations of functional typings based on what values and functions someone is perceived to be expressing, becuase the assumption that we can type XoX as an Fe-Ti type of some sort is falsified by the fact that I would also be typed as belonging to the same group, and yet I am an INTp. So, apparently an INTp can express such values and functions (assuming that they are correctly identified).
2. Just in case, I went through and compared some type descriptions again last night, and tried to read them with fresh eyes. The only parts where I am similar to an INFp are those that describe
One thing became more clear to me than before. Rick and others are right about one thing: Keirsey's INTP description desribes the functional ordering of the INTP (even though he never mentions functions of course, because they are not part of his theory) as indeed very similar to how for example DarkAngelFireWolf69 describes what an INTj is good at. That is probably the main reason why Rick and others see the INTP as similar to a socionic INTj. But Keirsey describes the INTP as an Objectivist with an IP temperament, and he describes the INTJ as a Subjectivist with an IJ temperament, and in every other aspect of how MBTT and Keirsey describe the behaviours of INTJs and INTPs the ABCD=ABCd thesis is confirmed. The only thing the two models disagree about is the internal thinking process seen from a pure functional perspective of the types INTJ and INTP.
I have said this many times before, and it is still a fact: If I am not an INTp, the theoretical framwork of Socionics inevitably falls apart. We have to sacrifice at least something given the assumption that I am some other type than INTp. The very least that has to go is the type descriptions, but most likely that will not suffice to get rid of the inconsistencies. Some of the Reinin dichotomies will also have to go, which would suggest that they are all based on something arbitrarily. Well, some people think that they are anyway, so that is no big loss. But to just accept that I am not an INTp without consequences for the theory of Socionics is simply impossible. The hypothesis that I am an INTp is so corroborated by now that it should be used as a reference for other possible INTps. It is more confirmed than almost every other person's on this forum. If we can doubt that I am INTp, we could just as well start to doubt that you are an ENTj -- and that doesn't make much sense, does it?
The difference is not only in strategy, it's about what's possible/desirable or not.Yes, that's a difference in attitude and maybe even strategy between you and XoX, but there is no difference in principle between your perspective and XoX's here. In fact, you are just advocating another kind "team spirit". You want people not to care about team spirit, not to care about how you feel. You prefer that people adopt the same professional attitude as you have yourself, and maybe that really is the best strategy for a team to work effectively.
For practical reasons, especially after knowing Socionics and after this debate here, yes, if I were to lead a team where some people feel the need for this team spirit, yes, I might "sell out" and try to create something like it, for their sake and for the sake of results. Just like Yulia Tymoshenko "sold out" and adopted a full Si-Fe political persona - - at least during election campaigns.
However, I'd do that as something that has to be done even though it's alien/undesirable to me - - just like many things I already do in my professional life. The key difference is that XoX fully identifies with it, as a desirable thing, for himself and yes, others - "I have to feel I am in a winning team otherwise I feel demotivated" etc, and he fully expects others to be like this as well.
And if you think that what I advocate/prefer is just another kind of "team spirit", then you're totally missing it. What I advocate as desirable is the irrelevance of there being a "team spirit" or not.
No. You're wrong.
I do not at all have a view of how people should think and feel. That's ridiculous. As I said very clearly: your feelings are your own business. I do expect people to work. If someone wants to feel like they are in a winning team, I don't care. They can feel that if they want. I would not say "you may not feel like that".
What I am saying is obvious, as is equally obvious that you're not getting it.
Again, no. XoX said clearly (1) that he can only see teams working at their best if there is such a "team spirit", and (2) that he, himself, finds this extremely desirable. So what he's saying is that his own view of team spirit is also the best for everyone.What you exhibit when you express your feelings and views on how you want to work in a team is foremost a strong preference for the ETj approach to doing things, for example here:
And you are clearly missing XoX's point. XoX is making a general point from a general, game-theoretical perspective, but you insist on seeing the whole thing from the perspective of a specific, concrete situation where you yourself are (hypothetically) involved. If anything, that only shows that you might have some problems with the fact that people are different and sometimes prefer to work in totally different ways.
Yes he'd say " oh no you can do what you want, but I don't think your team can be a winning team" which, again, is a distinction without a difference.
My problems is not how people work -- it's with the idea that, in order to work well, you have to feel a certain way.
That's a totally irrelevant analogy. By definition, if you are in a religion, it's because you believe in it.
If you really think that's a valid analogy to what we are discussing here, then I think it's worse than I thought.
A fact is that you can't really know how people actually feel, so to even try to judge people based on that is sheer lunacy. You may have the illusion that you know how people feel by, say, watching them jumping about when someone scores a goal in hockey, or if they go about looking happy or sad if the team succeeded or failed.
Unless you think that such behavior is necessarily a true indication of how they really feel, especially if that's what's expected of them.
Yes.
That's exactly what I was trying to say. But you focus to much on the words here (because you are a rational type). Instead of "team spririt" we could choose the word "perspective" or something like that.
You are just repeating what we already agree upon. But that attitude of yours is still an attitude. It is a view on what kind of team you think you would work best in. You indicate that you would be less functional in a team where everyone cared about each others feelings all the time and let their actions be influenced by such motives and considerations.
Yes, what you say is obvious to me, and I understand what you are trying to say. But you are not getting what XoX and I are trying to say. That is interesting but not too difficult to explain, or at least understand, in a socionic perspective. It can be seen as resulting from the innate nature of the difficulties in communication that
No, you are still confusing things. A team is not the same thing as a group of individuals. XoX may still be right (or wrong) about teams working at their best -- as a team, not as a group of individuals -- if there is such a thing as a "team spirit". A possible consequence if he (hypothetically) is right about that is that someone with your attitude can never be part of the most effective team imaginable. Such a team could be a very unusual creature, and perhaps it can't even exist. I think there might be examples of high functioning teams with similar characteristics as those that XoX has described. But again, the whole point of this is that is has nothing to do with your personal preferences.
We could try to test XoX's hypothesis by letting teams with team spirits and teams without team sprits compete against each other in real life or in computer simulations. We could let people come up with any type of team they want, with any type of "rules" and strategies about how to function in the most optimal way, and then see which type of team would win such a contest. As a result of such competitions we already know that one of the most optimal strategies in general is tit-for-tat, and who knows what an investigation in "Team Science" would result in? I don't, but maybe some progress has already been made in that field.
Yes, that is your personal preference, but it has nothing to do with XoX's general point.
No, it is very relevant to what XoX is trying to say but you still don't seem to get.That's a totally irrelevant analogy.
You are clearly wrong about that. Feelings are more difficult to know about than many other things, but they are still part of the same objective world as everything else. Besides that, there are other strong philosophical arguments showing that you are wrong about what you say here, but let's not go into that.
Yes, it is possible to have such an illusion. But it is also possible to be perfectly and objectively right about how people feel. To think that it is impossible, in principle, to know such things is simply false.
It's not about that at all. The very idea that someone would even take into consideration what I am supposed to be feeling in a work situation is both morally repellent and not applicable to many people.
You are just repeating what we already agree upon. But that attitude of yours is still an attitude. It is a view on what kind of team you think you would work best in. You indicate that you would be less functional in a team where everyone cared about each others feelings all the time and let their actions be influenced by such motives and considerations.
What would then be the difference between the words and images in this case?Yes, what you say is obvious to me, and I understand what you are trying to say. But you are not getting what XoX and I are trying to say. That is interesting but not too difficult to explain, or at least understand, in a socionic perspective. It can be seen as resulting from the innate nature of the difficulties in communication that
As in the Borg? There is a collective mind?
That's precisely the point in terms of Socionics.
And how would you scientifically measure the amoung of "team spirit" in the sense that XoX described -- "you should not feel proud about your own performance if the team failed" etc?
It has to do with my view that XoX's general point is absurd due to the very idea of feeling-control.Yes, that is your personal preference, but it has nothing to do with XoX's general point.
I think I am getting far more than you think.
So you consider yourself able to objectively see how people are really feeling? And that's part of the objective world?You are clearly wrong about that. Feelings are more difficult to know about than many other things, but they are still part of the same objective world as everything else.
"Philosophical arguments" are proof of nothing related to the "objective world".
It is not impossible to be right about how people feel. Of course you can be right about it. What is impossible is to measure people's feelings "objectively" in any reliable way.Yes, it is possible to have such an illusion. But it is also possible to be perfectly and objectively right about how people feel. To think that it is impossible, in principle, to know such things is simply false.
Tell me this, then -- how do you go about "being objectively right about how people feel"?
Ok...it seems this thread keeps growing in too fast a pace for my capabilities to keep up with all that is said, lol. But something here rubs me the wrong way and on the other hand made me think about how I come across. So I concentrate on this. I try to re-describe...I hope I'm not contradictory.In an ideal world, yes. But in real corporations, your career can be ruined by evaluations like "he's not a team player, I don't want him in my team" and that's what I have to conclude XoX would do.
And yes, I would kick someone out of my team due to his/her performance. XoX would do that due to his/her feelings. That's what it boils down to.
You are saying I would kick someone out of my team due to their feelings rather than performance. This is definately twisting my motivation. The whole time I'm talking about increasing PERFORMANCE. So performance is my number one concern not feelings. What I claimed was that team spirit is needed for optimal team performance. So I would not select people in my team who I feel lack team spirit because, I'm assuming based on my past observations, that it affects their performance but most definately the performance of the team as a whole. If someone already is in my team and they and the team are performing great then of course there is no problem there. I'm just suspicious this kind of situation could happen in reality if the team spirit is not there. When I find a team where everyone seriously lack team spirit but the team still performs awesomely I will reconsider.
So you are saying that in your opinion the lack or inclusion of team spirit DOES NOT have any effect on individual or team performance. At least for you or people in your Quadra and so on. It boils down to this. This kind of claim goes against my past experience.
So let's use an example to clarify.
Example 1:
I have a team of ten Expats who totally lack "team spirit" i.e. are only interested in themselves and don't give a shit about team goals or team success and are not at all committed to the team and despise each other. They are still performing awesomely and kick ass. -> There is no problem. I might be puzzled about how this is possible and find the whole situation weird but hey, no real problem there. I have never experienced this kind of situation so it would a new and interesting experience.
Example 2:
I have a team of ten people and the team has an Expat who lacks team spirit and this starts to affect the team performance. Expat is doing his own work good but his selfish "star player attitude" and general and visible lack of interest to the team manages to lower the overall team performance. Now this time I have to evaluate whether replacing Expat would increase or decrease the overall team performance. I might try to keep Expat in the team and do some effort to keep the general spirit up but I might also consider replacing Expat with someone who makes the team as a whole perform better. No matter if that person is not as effective on individual level. This is the same kind of situation where a star player of a soccer team is traded to someone less skilled but more a team player in order to increase the overall team performance So it is about performance. You are somehow twisting the whole motivation to be only about "feelings" and not about performance.
So the thing is that in my experience lack of team spirit is likely to affect the team performance and you are saying it has no effect. I wouldn't personally become much de-motivated about lack of team spirit if the team still performed greatly. Of course it might have effect on my personal performance if people would constantly keep telling me that they don't give a shit about me and my performance, anybody else in the team or their performance or the team goals and they just generally despise everyone. It would be weird to work in this kind of situation even if the performance of the team was good. It would seriously puzzle me if they kept on saying this and their actions would still be something I expect from a spirited team. It would be a weird situation.
I'm not sure how I react if someone says they don't care but I can see from their actions that they do care. In that kind of situation I'm likely to trust that their actions tell the truth as all true values are always manifested in action. Talk is always just talk. If someone says they seriously hate me and then take a bullet for me I would focus on their action not their words.
So after this "analysis" I would say that I judge someone's team spirit or lack of it based on their actions or performance. How they do things in practice. When I'm selecting members to my team who I don't know I tend to give more weight to if I feel they are committed to the team or not and if they radiate "team spirit" or not (as I don't know how they act in practice)
There is a serious twisting of my message happening here. Either I'm communicating my view very badly or some people refuse to understand for some unknown reason. Anyways I find the criticism towards my view be faulty and "strawman" in most cases.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote