Quadras, Types and Winning/Competitiveness

[XoX]

Which Quadras and types are most/least into winning and competitiveness.

I tend to think a lot in terms of winning/losing. In almost every situation I think about the happenings around me in those terms. Did I win? Did I lose? Who won? Who lost? Who has the capability to win? Who doesn't?

Even though I can lose for social reasons occasionally (in order to make someone happy) and sometimes I just don't have enough energy or courage to compete in some matters still winning/losing/competing is part of my every day vocabulary and I enjoy doing many things because of winning. It is a strong motivator. Also I hate to lose especially if I feel like I had a chance but I just didn't do enough.

Then again I don't believe in "winning no matter what the cost" kind of thing. Winning and competition should be a creating and positive force not destructive. The benefits should generally outweight the costs. Then I can feel sympathy for those who lost in many cases if they are not the kind of people who can or should take a loss.

I was wondering how much this kind of thing is type and Quadra related and how much personal or something else?

There has been some discussion about this already but how do you see it?

And what other ways there are to motivate yourself? "For fun" has been suggested but what else?

[Phaedrus]

I tend to think a lot in terms of winning/losing. In almost every situation I think about the happenings around me in those terms. Did I win? Did I lose? Who won? Who lost? Who has the capability to win? Who doesn't?

It depends on the situation.

Even though I can lose for social reasons occasionally (in order to make someone happy)

I almost never do that. If I decide to play, I play to win (or not to lose).

and sometimes I just don't have enough energy or courage to compete in some matters still winning/losing/competing is part of my every day vocabulary and I enjoy doing many things because of winning. It is a strong motivator. Also I hate to lose especially if I feel like I had a chance but I just didn't do enough.

We are probably rather similar here. But I don't know if I walk around thinking about winning/losing/competing all the time. On the other hand, I compete quite a lot. I play strategic games.

Then again I don't believe in "winning no matter what the cost" kind of thing. Winning and competition should be a creating and positive force not destructive. The benefits should generally outweight the costs.

I agree.

Then I can feel sympathy for those who lost in many cases if they are not the kind of people who can or should take a loss.

But I don't know about that. Losses are part of the game. If you can't stand a loss, you should not compete.

I was wondering how much this kind of thing is type and Quadra related and how much personal or something else?

I don't know if Expat was serious or not when he seemed to suggest that being competitive could indicate Beta. The fact is that ENTjs are one of the most competitie of types. And their playing style is usually very aggressive (maybe because they are Enneagram 8s). INTps like games of all sorts, and they are also competitive, though their playing style is somewhat different from the ENTjs.

And what other ways there are to motivate yourself? "For fun" has been suggested but what else?

Motivate yourself in what situation? To play for fun, without trying to win is totally alien for me. If the purpose of the activity is to win, then you should try to win. But of course you can do other things for fun than competing.

[Logos]

Maybe it has to do with as a quadra value?

[Jimbean]

IMO

This thing seems to be on a more individualistic basis. Maybe there is some correlation of this attitude and as a quadra value, but then again I am this way myself.

But then again I guess you could value with it not being a natural value to yourself.

[Logos]

Or perhaps competitiveness can manifest itself in different ways within the realms of game and sport?

[XoX]

I tend to think a lot in terms of winning/losing. In almost every situation I think about the happenings around me in those terms. Did I win? Did I lose? Who won? Who lost? Who has the capability to win? Who doesn't?

It depends on the situation.

Ok. Hmm...how should I explain it...in situations where the option of winning and losing exists and makes sense, heh.

Even though I can lose for social reasons occasionally (in order to make someone happy)

I almost never do that. If I decide to play, I play to win (or not to lose).

Heh. I'm not sure if I do this for others than some ESTps. They so hate to lose that sometimes I let them win without them knowing it. Then again I have lost some gaming companions because I go too far sometimes. I once had the need to drop everyone out of high score list in one game which made my brother in law compare me to ****** because I wanted to have it all. Lol. I just wanted to see if I can do that. I didn't know he took it so seriously. Also I have been claimed to be too competitive in some other occasions like in card games where others just want to enjoy the "atmosphere" but I play for win. But yes, I can lose for social reasons to people I really like if I see that it makes them happy and increases the bond between us. Not in situations involving money or in something "serious" though. Not in something which matters to me psychologically. I think I have developed this "softer side of me" only in recent years. I didn't have it when I was younger. Nowadays I get weird satisfaction for sometimes being a softie and sort of submitting to those I like. ESTps seem to be one type that make me want to please them. I have a feeling that ENFj might be too but to a lesser extent.

Perhaps your stance is somewhat more extreme than mine here. I'm a bit of a softie in the end

I play strategic games.

Me too. Although I don't like super complicated games which some people seem to like. Perhaps I need some kind of balance between strategy and tactics. Short term and long term. I do enjoy tactical battles a lot and too detailed strategic games can bore me. You might be a bit different from me here. Have you ever enjoyed action games like Quake or other first person shooters? I also used to enjoy those. So I'm not all about competing only in strategy. Action, tactics, strategy. All goes for me in right amounts.

Then I can feel sympathy for those who lost in many cases if they are not the kind of people who can or should take a loss.

But I don't know about that. Losses are part of the game. If you can't stand a loss, you should not compete.

I'm referring more to those who didn't wish to play/compete but were forced to by circumstances and then lost. Or some other special circumstances which make the game unfair or not fun. It makes me feel bad for them. Personally I wouldn't enjoy much beating someone who doesn't want to compete or who is just somehow too fragile to lose and doesn't understand it. But I do generally dislike people who step into the ring/game and if they lose cant accept it and let the winner enjoy but try to spoil the victory by whining or explaining or something.

And what other ways there are to motivate yourself? "For fun" has been suggested but what else?

Motivate yourself in what situation? To play for fun, without trying to win is totally alien for me. If the purpose of the activity is to win, then you should try to win. But of course you can do other things for fun than competing.

This was related to general lack of fun in life which can be compensated by competing and winning in different things. Then the "fun" comes from the compettion and winning. FDG suggested that why not doing something JUST for fun and not competing or trying to win. I can't say that such thing is totally alien to me but I do like to try to win. The trying itself is motivating. It enables you to push yourself to new limits. It is way easier to find motivation in a competitive setting. I can be a bit of a slacker in a setting which is too peaceful and "fun" and such. I need the competition to be effective. I need to find the "internal fighter in me" or I start to slack. I need someone to challenge me and push me so I can find the energy to resist and try to win them.

There was one other thing...what was it...I can't recall. Lol.

[Ablack]

I realized that I rarely do anything "just for fun" (eg: I really don't like social sports) - but I don't know about necessarily having to win or lose; or whether I just need to "have a purpose". I like to win (because it means that I've become competent at something); but if I lose, I don't think it's so much of an issue ... more of an issue is whether I got anything out of the task/exercise (ie: did I learn anything or not). If I didn't learn anything, then it's a big (bad) deal ... a waste of time.

(Is this an INTj trait?)

[vague]

...

[UDP]

(Is this an INTj trait?)

Yes

[Logos]

The only thing I am competitive against is my own understanding of my competence or potential as well as my goals of self-improvement.

[FDG]

Let's see. There are different situations.

In a sports where there is a tecnical, skills component, I want to demostrate to have the best techinque. I don't care about winning generally, unless I am into a team in a serious competition, in which case I'll be more responsible.

When I am biking, yes I like to compete to win. However if I see that the other party is putting too much weigh and he's going to be very pissed by my winning over him, I let him win. This of course doesn't happen in official competitions. Especially true with a friend of mine whose type I can't identify (isfp maybe).

I guess that then it could be answered "yes" to your question since there is a component of being better than others, however sometimes the parameters are not objective.

When outside official competitions, and without anybody challenging me, I do things purely for fun, usually. I can't understand what an very, very unhappy life would be to think in such terms:

To play for fun, without trying to win is totally alien for me.

How do you go through your life without any fun? Without filling yourself with joy just for playing? Every day is a battle? What the hell...? Ok, everybody lives his life the way he/she prefers, but I think an adjustment in perispective might be beneficial here.

It's actually disconcerting to me to know that there are people that don't do things for fun.

[Phaedrus]

I play strategic games.

Me too. Although I don't like super complicated games which some people seem to like. Perhaps I need some kind of balance between strategy and tactics. Short term and long term. I do enjoy tactical battles a lot and too detailed strategic games can bore me. You might be a bit different from me here. Have you ever enjoyed action games like Quake or other first person shooters? I also used to enjoy those. So I'm not all about competing only in strategy. Action, tactics, strategy. All goes for me in right amounts.

Every time people talk about strategic games they think of games that I don't play. Maybe I don't know what it is called in English -- "strategy games" maybe? Anyway, I prefer to play classical board games where strategy and knowledge is important for success. I have played chess for many, many years (in fact this very weekend we are playing the last three rounds in the Swedish regional series for club teams, and my hypothesis the last 3-4 years has been that the main reason why we haven't yet won it in despite having had one of the best teams according to ratings is that we lack a "team spirit". We've still got a chance (as usual) to win it though -- two rounds to go ...), I have played some bridge during the years, I play poker, and I like othello (reversi).

Personally I wouldn't enjoy much beating someone who doesn't want to compete or who is just somehow too fragile to lose and doesn't understand it.

Neither do I. There is not point in trying to win if the other person(s) is not interested in competing.

But I do generally dislike people who step into the ring/game and if they lose cant accept it and let the winner enjoy but try to spoil the victory by whining or explaining or something.

Yeah, but some people will continue to do that anyway. It is also, in a sense, a part of the game.

The trying itself is motivating. It enables you to push yourself to new limits. It is way easier to find motivation in a competitive setting. I can be a bit of a slacker in a setting which is too peaceful and "fun" and such. I need the competition to be effective. I need to find the "internal fighter in me" or I start to slack. I need someone to challenge me and push me so I can find the energy to resist and try to win them.

I am also like that.

[FDG]

"The trying itself is motivating. It enables you to push yourself to new limits. It is way easier to find motivation in a competitive setting. I can be a bit of a slacker in a setting which is too peaceful and "fun" and such. I need the competition to be effective. I need to find the "internal fighter in me" or I start to slack. I need someone to challenge me and push me so I can find the energy to resist and try to win them."

Ah, I didn't see this. I think I'm generally self motivated, maybe that might explain the difference.

[Expat]

This discussion, as so often, is getting side-tracked in irrelevancies.

It's not about, when you do happen to play a game, whether you play to win or not. That is just silly. Who does not, generally speaking, play chess to win?

I have focused on this issue because XoX, spontaneously, said this:

Why is it all about winning?

That is a good question Somehow 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?

And here on this thread, again:

In almost every situation I think about the happenings around me in those terms. Did I win? Did I lose? Who won? Who lost?

So, unless he's not really meaning it (and in that case I will simply cease to discuss his type, as something not worth my attention anymore) this is something crucial to his views of reality and of people, and is totally consistent with that "team spirit" in the sense that he put it (but don't just listen to me in that, go read the whole thread as I may have hidden motives to distort XoX's views, you see. That's the kind of person I am ).

I don't know if Expat was serious or not when he seemed to suggest that being competitive could indicate Beta. The fact is that ENTjs are one of the most competitie of types. And their playing style is usually very aggressive (maybe because they are Enneagram 8s). INTps like games of all sorts, and they are also competitive, though their playing style is somewhat different from the ENTjs.

I did not suggest that "being competitive" might suggest Beta. I did, and I do suggest, that viewing every situation (or most situations, whatever) in terms of a division between winners or losers suggests Beta. That's not the same as just "being competitive". By softening the terms (and I'm not suggesting you are deliberately distorting what I said, as XoX suggests I do) and referring just to "playing games" you are confusing the issue as I see it.

Since Phaedrus mentioned me. I like to win, in the sense of achieving my goals, but I dislike the view that everything is about winning or losing, much less about a division between winners and losers. Even when applying for a job, and getting it, I don't think of the other candidates are those "who lost". I think in terms of what I am setting out to achieve. If that means that others will have to "lose" so that I may "win", so be it, but it's not at all central to my views of things. Not in the way XoX expressed it, which would never have occurred to me. In my job, I have to think of the competitors since I have to be better than them, and they are central, but if I get the business I never think primarily, "I won, they lost", I think merely, "I succeeded". My success is my primary motivation, not "winning" in terms of others losing.

And to those who say that I am focusing on non-essential phrasing -- please see carefully what XoX wrote.


So please don't confuse the issue by asking whether Deltas also think of winning when playing chess or tennis or whatever -- if it's about comparing people with others, let's ask them whether they relate to always thinking of winning and losing in almost every situation.

Or to this:

I need the competition to be effective. I need to find the "internal fighter in me" or I start to slack. I need someone to challenge me and push me so I can find the energy to resist and try to win them.

This sounds like introversion and Se dual-seeking at the very least.

Again, so as not to lose track of the main issue -- I do not think this is strong evidence of not being INTp.

I do think that it's very, very strong evidence of his not being ENFp. Or any Delta.

I realized that I rarely do anything "just for fun" (eg: I really don't like social sports) - but I don't know about necessarily having to win or lose; or whether I just need to "have a purpose". I like to win (because it means that I've become competent at something); but if I lose, I don't think it's so much of an issue ... more of an issue is whether I got anything out of the task/exercise (ie: did I learn anything or not). If I didn't learn anything, then it's a big (bad) deal ... a waste of time.

(Is this an INTj trait?)

That is general Ti IJ trait, perhaps a general IJ temperament trait, also what Logos said.

[Expat]

I think I'm generally self motivated, maybe that might explain the difference.

EP as opposed to IP, that's the difference.

[snegledmaca]

I did not suggest that "being competitive" might suggest Beta. I did, and I do suggest, that viewing every situation (or most situations, whatever) in terms of a division between winners or losers suggests Beta. That's not the same as just "being competitive".

Uhmm, I'd say it suggests being pathological. I have a friend, who is IEE, who when plays always plays to win and overkill and humiliation of the opponent are normal for him. But this behavior is not caused by him being IEE and thus being "naturally" inclined to act in such a, IMO, pathological way, it's because during his youth he always played video games and other games against his uncle who almost always beat him (And on top of it is LII) and he developed a slight complex regarding wining and losing and generally his drive to win is hyphened and he gets extra pleasure from it.
I'd say a similar thing happens for people with a drive to win, the drive develops as a consequence of an attempt to balance ones ego that was being suppressed.

With Se types a control of one's environment is normal so for them a drive and skills to control one's environment develop naturally and a drive to win could be seen as one of the manifestations of this need for control so it is reasonable to assume that they will develop the attitude to win to a certain manner. But here the attitude develops from a healthy functioning ego and is a manifestation of the ego and is not an attempt to overcompensate for the ego being suppressed, that is, such a person is in full control of their attitude, they like to win when it's appropriate, have no problems with losing (They may still dislike it though) and all in all they are balanced and in control.

Having said this, I fail to see how you could attribute unhealthy, underdeveloped Se ("viewing every situation (or most situations, whatever) in terms of a division between winners or losers" I consider to be unhealthy Se) to types that have Se in their ego. I mean, this is their strongest point, a place where they have the most control and balance. If anything unhealthy attitudes of a function should be attributed to types that have it as weak and/or underdeveloped.

So in essence your claim that this behavior, always looking at people as winners and losers, points towards the beta quadra is only partially right, as it would apply to only EIE-s from the beta quadra (As generally a person lacks usage of their dual function while needing guidance in their activation, meaning, the dual function is never used but expected to be given while the activation is always used and expected to be corrected) and would also apply to LIE-s, IEE-s and ILE-s (Not LII-s and EII-s cause any usage of ones PoLR is avoided if possible).

IMO that is.

[Expat]

Ok.

My comments --

1) "being pathological" - yes, if an extreme behavior in terms of seeing everything in terms of win or lose, yes. But in such cases we don't have to even discuss Socionics. I also understand that XoX' exaggerated to make a point. Even so, it's a kind of image that I think that, if not necessarily only Beta, points at least away from Delta, which is my main point.

2) You're sidetracking the issue a bit with your focus on Se-ego types. I suppose you mean that ESTps and ISTjs (although Beta) would not typically identify with that viewpoint as stated. Could be. I can see how a Se EP - as FDG described - might not consciously "bother" about actually dividing people between "who won" and "who lost".

3) You are analysing it from a type-specific and function-specific angle (which is also useful). I am looking at it with a broad-brush, quadra and dichotomy-focused angle. To divide people - as a primary instinct - into "teams" and "who won" and "who lost" is a very obvious manfestation of Aristocracy, and of the Beta rather than Delta sort. At a more quadra-focused broad-brush, more "to conquer" (Beta) rather than "to protect" (Delta).

4) Now, as I have said, I do not think this is strong evidence for someone not to be INTp, ENTj or another Gamma. And you may well be right that, in Beta, this is most typically ENFj. My main point was, and remains, that it is strong evidence for someone not being Delta.

Unless in "pathological cases" etc, but then, as always, it goes outside Socionics.

[XoX]

Just closing some threads which I have unanswered...

I was curious as not many here seem to share my views about winning/losing and I talked about it to my wife who did not see anything special about my attitude and actually she claimed have an even sharper view than that.

E.g. If she has to sit on the backseat of the car she considers it a loss (to those who sit in the front seat) and has hard time accepting it, lol. Actually I can see her point but I don't remember ever making a big deal out of it.

I wonder how people here see this backseat/frontseat thing? Is it about winning/losing?

[meatburger]

I just dont have a killer instinct to win. When i would play sport i would try fairly hard but i wouldn't get too wrapped up in it. Because i dont give a shit im actually a really good looser lol. If i loose im only upset for about 30 seconds normally. My ego is not tied up in winning or loosing.

I have noticed that taking things too seriously doesn't work for me. If im having fun at something you better watch out. Playing a game of call of duty for instance, if i start being stupid my brain goes into overdrive and it actually gives me an edge. If i take it seriously i just get shitty and grumpy. In pool i dont focus on winning but i focus on just playing an exceptional shot. I love pool as it's a combo of fun and competition.

[Creepy-bg]

heh I like to screw the system to make a joke out of people who take the winning/losing thing too serriously...

for instance- I used to be thoughly into this game called Interstate '82... it was an online multiplayer autocombat game. some people got all kinds of serrious about it, making an autovigilante league that played by certain ethics and stuff and were always way uptight about things. My response? learning how to hack the shit out the game and making things like garbage dumpsters into cars that made the AV people go "WTF!" and instantly leave the game in a hissy fit. (an a side note I was the mapmaking G0dez of that game, if anybody's interrested and has the bandwidth let me know and I'll send you the iso of the game so I can show off my mapmaking skillz to you. Some really great stuff... I made a whole city (Hollywood) to play in and by the endish of the game (when the number of people playing had tapered off to the most hardcore g33ks umong us) I even made an RC car map where everything was supersized and the normal sized cars seemed to be the size of little RC racers.... ahhh good times....

I think I've wandered totally off the point... but I sooooooo miss that game

anyways... I don't take winning or losing serriously at all. For me it's more about choice moments of triumph... like serriously tackling the fuck out of the big guy that nobody else can get near in a football game or knocking somebody off the map with 6 stacked cannons coming out of a dumpster that by all rights shouldn't even be able to get into the game.

[Ablack]

I wonder how people here see this backseat/frontseat thing? Is it about winning/losing?

I fight for the front seat too and get pretty annoyed when I don't get it. When I was a kid, I liked the front seat because it made me feel like I had "rank" over my siblings (ie: I felt that since I was older, I was the mature kid and should have more of a responsibility/leadership role compared to the others). Now, that desire for the front seat has matured into one where I (still) see the front seat as where all of the decisions can be made and communicated directly with the driver (there's more potential for leadership and influencing decisions). Whereas if you're in the back, you can't see much of what's going on/be a part of the action, and communication with the driver is not as easy. It feels like you are just along for the ride. I guess that wanting to be in the front has something to do with me still needing "a purpose" even while on the car trip (I feel too idle in the back).

[Creepy-bg]

I wonder how people here see this backseat/frontseat thing? Is it about winning/losing?

I fight for the front seat too and get pretty annoyed when I don't get it. When I was a kid, I liked the front seat because it made me feel like I had "rank" over my siblings (ie: I felt that since I was older, I was the mature kid and should have more of a responsibility/leadership role compared to the others). Now, that desire for the front seat has matured into one where I (still) see the front seat as where all of the decisions can be made and communicated directly with the driver (there's more potential for leadership and influencing decisions). Whereas if you're in the back, you can't see much of what's going on/be a part of the action, and communication with the driver is not as easy. It feels like you are just along for the ride. I guess that wanting to be in the front has something to do with me still needing "a purpose" even while on the car trip (I feel too idle in the back).

I hate the frontseat and love the back for exactly the same reasons

[mikemex]

Ne and Se dominants can be quite competitive, but for very different reasons.

Ne types strive for perfection in themselves and thus compete with others to have a picture of where they stand in the scale.

Se types compete to feel a sense of superiority and thus authority over others.

[FDG]

I wonder how people here see this backseat/frontseat thing? Is it about winning/losing?

I fight for the front seat too and get pretty annoyed when I don't get it. When I was a kid, I liked the front seat because it made me feel like I had "rank" over my siblings

My god, there are serious losers around here.

Anyway, usually what I do is destroying the authority of those who have it so that everybody is on equal terms and nobody can take decisions over others. I can do this pretty well, I admit

[snegledmaca]

Ok.

My comments --

1) "being pathological" - yes, if an extreme behavior in terms of seeing everything in terms of win or lose, yes. But in such cases we don't have to even discuss Socionics. I also understand that XoX' exaggerated to make a point. Even so, it's a kind of image that I think that, if not necessarily only Beta, points at least away from Delta, which is my main point.

Oh... he did? I never get that (I naturally expect people to be up front with no distortions and "plays" which kills me in sarcasm and jokes cause often I end up being the guy that understood it literally and appear stupid and naive)

3) You are analysing it from a type-specific and function-specific angle (which is also useful). I am looking at it with a broad-brush, quadra and dichotomy-focused angle. To divide people - as a primary instinct - into "teams" and "who won" and "who lost" is a very obvious manfestation of Aristocracy, and of the Beta rather than Delta sort. At a more quadra-focused broad-brush, more "to conquer" (Beta) rather than "to protect" (Delta).

Ah, yes, well I don't think aristocracy is distributed the way it is claimed to be, meaning, some types that are claimed to be aristocratic are not and some that are claimed not to be are.

2) You're sidetracking the issue a bit with your focus on Se-ego types. I suppose you mean that ESTps and ISTjs (although Beta) would not typically identify with that viewpoint as stated. Could be. I can see how a Se EP - as FDG described - might not consciously "bother" about actually dividing people between "who won" and "who lost".

Actually, I was pointing more towards Beta NF-s. Look at it this way, beta NF-s are Ni + Fe, meaning, they are all about a nice and friendly emotional atmosphere, which would be Fe, but with Ni guidance, or an atmosphere that has a controlled development. This attitude, winning and losing, is like a wrench thrown into this mechanism, it completely destroys all of their efforts. There is very little chance of having a nice and friendly emotional atmosphere if you have a looser and a winner in the same room, naturally the winner will be proud and the looser resentful and this is just underlined tension, if ever so small. There is even less chance (Or should I say NO chance) of it being preserved over time cause the tension can only build up if you have segregation like that at all times and if not relieved, which Fe + Ni types attempt to do and strain themselves in their attempts to regain control over the development of the atmosphere, it will blow up and destroy all of their Fe efforts. (This is also the reason why I can't see beta as being aristocratic, segregation and division go against Fe + Ni, it ruins the controlled development of an emotional atmosphere. Perhaps if the groups we separate, where each group is homogenous so the Fe + Ni can continue it's development inside that homogenous group, but different people together being segregated just won't do. If anything this process should be see as *homogenization*, which really shouldn't be confused with nor equated to segregation, cause different groups are *assimilated* into the main group (Also if you compare this to the communism of Russia you will see that this is exactly what happened, homogenization and not segregation))

EDIT: Ok, so perhaps I was talking more about NiFe-s then FeNi-s here

4) Now, as I have said, I do not think this is strong evidence for someone not to be INTp, ENTj or another Gamma. And you may well be right that, in Beta, this is most typically ENFj. My main point was, and remains, that it is strong evidence for someone not being Delta.

Hmmm, I didn't see like that. I think that if you said that, that it points to not being delta, then I would have agreed with you. Also, if it doesn't point to delta then it doesn't mean that it necessarily points to beta. Unless, theoretically, anti delta behavior is beta behavior, where I think one should be careful because it's quite likely that one will get the same system MBTI has, or theory that defines people and not people that define theory (As betas will be marked by anti delta behavior, and then deltas by anti beta and as time goes on the system will slowly diverge and reach a new state).

[Expat]

Hmmm, I didn't see like that. I think that if you said that, that it points to not being delta, then I would have agreed with you. Also, if it doesn't point to delta then it doesn't mean that it necessarily points to beta.

Pointing away from Delta and towards Beta, yes, but not necessarilty to Beta, I agree.

[XoX]

I wonder how people here see this backseat/frontseat thing? Is it about winning/losing?

I fight for the front seat too and get pretty annoyed when I don't get it. When I was a kid, I liked the front seat because it made me feel like I had "rank" over my siblings

My god, there are serious losers around here.

Anyway, usually what I do is destroying the authority of those who have it so that everybody is on equal terms and nobody can take decisions over others. I can do this pretty well, I admit

How about seeing the traffic lights as a formula one starting grid where the one who is first out of the lights wins? We had some fun thinking about this yesterday while driving.

[Slacker]

I'm not very competitive. I don't care if I beat someone at a game or not.

Now, I am very demanding with myself in that if I don't do as well as I think I should have done, I beat myself up about it a bit. I don't know if that counts as "competition" or not because it's just about my expectations of myself and not wrapped up with whether someone else does better. If someone else is better than I am at something, I'm in awe of their talent, not thinking I should have done better.

[cracka]

I'm very competitive. In almost everything I do, I can handle losing but I'll find a way to win next time.

[FDG]

I wonder how people here see this backseat/frontseat thing? Is it about winning/losing?

I fight for the front seat too and get pretty annoyed when I don't get it. When I was a kid, I liked the front seat because it made me feel like I had "rank" over my siblings

My god, there are serious losers around here.

Anyway, usually what I do is destroying the authority of those who have it so that everybody is on equal terms and nobody can take decisions over others. I can do this pretty well, I admit

How about seeing the traffic lights as a formula one starting grid where the one who is first out of the lights wins? We had some fun thinking about this yesterday while driving.

ahahah, yes, i do this!

[Creepy-bg]

I wonder how people here see this backseat/frontseat thing? Is it about winning/losing?

I fight for the front seat too and get pretty annoyed when I don't get it. When I was a kid, I liked the front seat because it made me feel like I had "rank" over my siblings

My god, there are serious losers around here.

Anyway, usually what I do is destroying the authority of those who have it so that everybody is on equal terms and nobody can take decisions over others. I can do this pretty well, I admit

How about seeing the traffic lights as a formula one starting grid where the one who is first out of the lights wins? We had some fun thinking about this yesterday while driving.

ahahah, yes, i do this!

I'm too paranoid of somebody running the stale yellow or red to do that. I picture traffic as water drop moving along pipes (the road) and stop lights are like valves that either stop the water or open to let it "fall" through... (maybe you had to be there?)

[benedict]

What XoX writes is interesting. This competitiveness thing may be something fundamental. Personally, it tires me when people think and talk in terms of winning/loosing, because it doen’t make sense to me. Once I met a someone who wanted me to boast about my job. I told her I like my job but I honestly didn’t see what element of my job I could possibly boast about, and quoted Proverbs and said that jobs can and should be really nice but whatever you do is vanity. It made her angry. It probably has to do with motivation and perception (exploring versus achieving?). To be honest, I am not familar enough with the theory to see how this relates to the functions.

Some more field data:
1. Two ENTJ friends of mine rank people according to their (presumed) IQ.

2. Yesterday I took part in an Ultimate Frisbee tournament, and the vast majority of the participants seemed Delta (in my team for sure). The teams obviously wanted to win, but winning was not a condition to feel well, not even for the ESTJ’s, although they were thrilled by the game, worked hard to be good at it and roared when somebody made a good catch. There was no hierarchy. Afterwards the people (both ‘winners’ and ‘loosers’) talked mainly about whom they met, what they learned, nice catches they saw, and where to go for Chinese food. I doubt if they still remember who won and who lost. Sorry, no statistics, and I may be wrong, but Delta’s don't seem competative.

3. The first thing my ESTP colleague (who plays hockey) asked me this morning is whether I won.