Selfishness and types...

[Hope]

How do you define selfishness (what is being selfish for you) and what are the most selfish types in your experience?

I think that what we consider as selfish could be influenced by quadra values. F.e. To me being selfish is consider only your own needs and desires over others needs in a situation which involves 2 or more beings, and then, being helpful is being considerate.
Politeness, appropriateness and courteousness are part of being selfless (I'm not too good with this but I appreciate it).

Personally I've had more irl experiences (close relations) about selfishness with NFs, especially IEIs, but I its possible that this traits could be more related to immaturity than type.


Share your thoughts and experiences.

[Bertrand]

ya as soon as I saw the topic prior to reading your post I was like to myself "most selfishness is in the eye of the beholder"... I think we can say Fi views selfishness as a lack of reciprocity, but which reciprocity is calculated from the point of view of a mutual degree of assumed egotism. Fe views selfishness as the presence of such egotism to begin with. In other words, Fi is more about rationally calculating what is selfless on the basis of what each party deserves but keeping in mind their interests will often conflict, whereas Fe is more about denying their right to be self interested to begin with. That is how I view it anyway. I feel like Fe operates from a presumed level of selflessness that then primarily subjects itself to perceptual manipulations and rule-based injunctions which may produce outcomes that are clearly selfish but with a degree of plausible deniability, having laundered itself through this process, whereas Fi admits selfishness is normal and sees "true selfishess" not as the desire to look after oneself or ones own but the inability or unwillingness to balance it against others in a rational manner. superficially they look the same, which is why so many times the two groups talk past eachother, but it has to do with their basic starting points and how they view the process whereby one comes to conclusions. Fe starting from the point of view of no individual rights has an easy job of inventing rules that in effect say "this is why you owe me x, failure to follow suit makes you selfish--that I benefit and unilaterally impose these rules is nothing because I am in fact standing in as the voice of the group." whereas in Fi, Te takes on the role of "voice of the group" and becomes a more "legal policy" more akin to "game theory" which is to say in a world of self interested people it makes sense the rule be x, not because I necessarily benefit, but because it functions to incentivize x and discourage y and if we order things that way its the best policy to avoid harm and waste going forward, and anyone can see that if they look

that the Fe individual benefits from their rule is of no moment because a degree of un-egotism is presumed at the onsent, and its often true. when Fe types especially people like LII make rule based analyses they really are dissolving their own ego into the diffuse realm of structural logic within which they're only a node (that this is precisely their ego and they don't suffer from it is an unrecognized advantage, a form of covert egotism)... at the same time that the Te type does presume to speak for the group, in the guise of objective logic, is not lost on the Fe types, who regard such advocacy as strangely inhumane, lacking passion for the group and so on. its interesting because I think the two groups basically balance eachother out, they just come to it from very different sides

I think in the end we can say no type is really more selfish than the other, but some types focus more on the issue and choose to think in terms of selfishness more than others. in the end there are ways for any type to be selfish or selfless. I think egotism (Fi) is thought of selfish more often, but I think its just a difference from where the right flow at the onset that inasmuch as it diverges from Fe types is considered selfish, but its really not

[Hope]

Fe starting from the point of view of no individual rights has an easy job of inventing rules that in effect say "this is why you owe me x, failure to follow suit makes you selfish--that I benefit and unilaterally impose these rules is nothing because I am in fact standing in as the voice of the group." whereas in Fi, Te takes on the role of "voice of the group" and becomes a more "legal policy" more akin to "game theory" which is to say in a world of self interested people it makes sense the rule be x, not because I necessarily benefit, but because it functions to incentivize x and discourage y and if we order things that way its the best policy to avoid harm and waste going forward, and anyone can see that if they look

Well, this is exactly how I've experienced Betas values in close relations (not friendships or superficial interactions). Inventing rules, domination as form of basic interaction (kinda bdsm not in sexual way I mean), expansionism etc. And yes, I suppose selfishness and selfless has a role in this, as ignoring the needs of others that are not strong enough to impose or fight for themselves.
I think all of this operates much more in close, personal, frequent and familiar interactions than in public or superficial interactions. I think its the style of aristocracy of Betas.

Then, Deltas aristocracy is more like voluntary submission according to credentials -Te- (talent, qualities, achievements, practical and psycho spiritual benefits etc) in seek of the perfect, the sublime, the holy (see clipped wings), instead of violent imposition. Therefore caregiver/childlike (pseudo caregiver) style.

I'd like to know how does it all works in alpha or gamma.

[ouronis]

I think of (pathological) selfishness as being in an immediate position to do something prosocial, but not, even though there is no conflict of interest for you. I suppose what constitutes "prosocial" can be a point of disagreement.

Ordinary selfishness (secure your own mask before securing others') is a lot more understandable.

[Bertrand]

yeah I think in betas live in a universe of totalitarian power so Se shapes the contours of what is permissible. I think Thucydides described the betaverse when he said "the strong do what they will and the weak bear what they must"--thus Ti Se "rules" are whatever they can essentially get away with without there being some kind of Fe Se uprising, which is probably why Hamlet is always popping off. anyway "selfishness" as a concept to beta is subject to these sorts of dynamics, but its all predicated on knowing they're just defenseless specs of dust waiting to be eradicated by some overwhelming force, thus they view life as more or less all equally cheap, and there's a kind of "equity" to that they take to be ethics. very r selected form of "selflessness"-- from the point of view of delta its the "selflessness" of low self esteem coupled with aggression ready to raise the banner in the name of the mob whenever it suits the ringleader. they consider themselves justified for as long until they're forcibly stopped, in other words, the momentum they generate justifies itself and selfishness is what they call self control

[Number 9 large]

Everyones selfish. The only difference between appearing so or not is the way u assert urself

[lavos]

Merry quadras have a particular brand of selfishness. It manifests as a willlingness to give only if something will be received. They feel the need to keep scores. Nothing is completely free.

[niffer]

Merry quadras have a particular brand of selfishness. It manifests as a willlingness to give only if something will be received. They feel the need to keep scores. Nothing is completely free.

This is not my experience and socionics literature attests to the opposite actually. Merry quadras are portrayed as very social and freely sharing stuff and information, especially alpha quadra, while gamma is portrayed as grumpy and stingy because of their realism.

In my experience in reality it's not the case, and I don't see any one quadra as particularly selfish over the others.

"Personally I've had more irl experiences (close relations) about selfishness with NFs, especially IEIs, but I its possible that this traits could be more related to immaturity than type."

I actually have seen people call IEIs I've known selfish a few times. I would imagine that NF types have the realm of taking care of material resources as weaker for them and something they're more anxious and uncomfortable having to deal with, therefore they may feel defensive and have selfish behaviours so that they don't get taken advantage of. You may be on to something. STs can seem stingy for the opposite reason though, because they're highly aware of their material resources and can be uncompromising on certain things they find important in regards to that. Socionics literature would support this as well.

[lavos]

In my experience in reality it's not the case, and I don't see any one quadra as particularly selfish over the others.

Then your experience differs from mine. Merry quadras share valued -Se/+Si. This is the IM that most closely correlates to ego and getting it satisfied. When your ego is not as important (serious quadras without valued -Se/+Si), real generosity can occur.

[niffer]

-Se/+Si. This is the IM that most closely correlates to ego and getting it satisfied. When your ego is not as important (serious quadras without valued -Se/+Si), real generosity can occur.

I don't know what you are talking about. Either quote socionics writings or explain more. I haven't heard of this concept before anywhere.

[lavos]

I don't know what you are talking about. Either quote socionics writings or explain more. I haven't heard of this concept before anywhere.

This concept is original content by me. Either accept it, test it, or ignore it. You could also try asking n0ki about it since he seems to be really getting the handle on the model B signs.

[niffer]

This concept is original content by me. Either accept it, test it, or ignore it. You could also try asking n0ki about it since he seems to be really getting the handle on the model B signs.

I like model B signs. This doesn't help much if you only write one line explaining yourself. Especially on top of overt bias, I'm probably going to ignore it.

[lavos]

I'm probably going to ignore it.

Go ahead. I guess you were probably triggered by my statement.

[niffer]

Go ahead. I guess you were probably triggered by my statement.

Even if I were to not ignore it, what would there be to examine and test? You didn't explain yourself at all lol.

[lavos]

+

Even if I were to not ignore it, what would there be to examine and test? You didn't explain yourself at all lol.

Personally, when I'm not sure if something I've read or heard is correct information, I proceed to test it (by observing). I have made the assertion that types with valued or relevant --Se/+Si are more selfish that those who don't value it. I have observed a link between that IM element, and ego-related behavior. This is the reason that EII's are often the most self-sacrificial type (since it is their PoLR). What else you need explained?

[niffer]

I have made the assertion that types with valued or relevant --Se/+Si are more selfish that those who don't value it.

Okay. Well you already know this isn't my experience lol, through my own testing I guess.

I have observed a link between that IM element, and ego-related behavior.

This is what I would have wanted you to explain more. If you have observed that there's a link, you should be able to explain how or give some more details on this and how it manifests. Like in different types in merry quadras for example, or how it acts at different dimensionalities. Or why. "Ego-related behavior" is vague.

This is the reason that EII's are often the most self-sacrificial type

They are? I didn't know that.

(since it is their PoLR).

Strictly speaking they should have +Se as their polr actually if you follow model B logically. Which, under your views, might actually make them the most selfish.

[lavos]

This is what I would have wanted you to explain more. If you have observed that there's a link, you should be able to explain how or give some more details on this and how it manifests.

I did. I wrote above: "Merry quadras have a particular brand of selfishness. It manifests as a willlingness to give only if something will be received. They feel the need to keep scores. Nothing is completely free." I can expound a bit: Merry types tend to see giving and receiving s a closed system. When they add something, they see as something that has been substracted and needs adding back. It's like a closed system. This could be linked to Ti valuing, but Ti valuing is the same as -Se/+Si valuing in Model B. When I talk of Ego, I refer to sense of self-importance derived from one's own identity being perceived as more important than that of other persons.

They are? I didn't know that.

I see.

Strictly speaking they should have +Se as their polr actually if you follow model B logically. Which, under your views, might actually make them the most selfish.

Not under Model B. I think you might be mixing it up with Gulenko's versions. In Model B, -Se is the PoLR of EII. The fact that EII's tend to be very self-sacrificial is a well known fact that I'm surprised you seem to be unaware about.

[niffer]

I can expound a bit: Merry types tend to see giving and receiving s a closed system. When they add something, they see as something that has been substracted and needs adding back. It's like a closed system. This could be linked to Ti valuing, but Ti valuing is the same as -Se/+Si valuing in Model B. When I talk of Ego, I refer to sense of self-importance derived from one's own identity being perceived as more important as that of other persons.

Fucking finally. How many times did I need to ask?

Sure, I'll think about this. Now that you've finally actually provided me with something.

Not under Model B. I think you might be mixing it up with Gulenko's versions. In Model B, -Se is the PoLR of EII.

You're the one mixing it up actually. Line all of the IEs up. +Fi lead, +Te DS. -Ne creative, -Si HA. -Fe ignoring, -Ti role. +Ni demonstrative, +Se polr.

[lavos]

You're the one mixing it up actually. Line all of the IEs up. +Fi lead, +Te DS. -Ne creative, -Si HA. -Fe ignoring, -Ti role. +Ni demonstrative, +Se polr.

EII is: +Fe (+Fe/-Fi) ignoring, +Ti role (+Ti/-Te), -Ni (-Ni/+Ne) demonstrative, -Se (-Se/+Si) PoLR. It's what's makes sense since in the Id is EIE, and in the superego is SLE.

[niffer]

EII is: +Fe (+Fe/-Fi) ignoring, +Ti role (+Ti/-Te), -Ni (-Ni/+Ne) demonstrative, -Se (-Se/+Si) PoLR.

Not under Model B. What source are you looking at?

The signs of the Id and Superego functions don't get flipped in Model B.

[lavos]

Not under Model B. What source are you looking at?

The ones that are available and not in russian, such as this one. I haven't bothered to check it with russian sources since I assumed it was correct, because it makes sense. EII wouldn't have +Se in the PoLR because it's SEE's base function. Or is +Se not SEE's base function under your view? Which source are you using?

[niffer]

The ones that are available and not in russian, such as this one. I haven't bothered to check it with russian sources since I assumed it was correct, because it makes sense. EII wouldn't have +Se in the PoLR because it's SEE's base function. Or is +Se not SEE's base function under your view? Which source are you using?

....

The supervisor's base is the supervisee's polr.

You sure you're LIE m8?

[lavos]

....

The supervisor's base is the supervisee's polr.

Nope, that is wrong. The supervisor base is the supervisee's HA. It's the main reason the supervision ITR ever happens. +Se of SEE is similar to HA of EII. Whereas -Se, base of SLE, is nowhere to be found in EII's behavior. Hence, it cannot be in their HA. The opposite doesn't make any sense.

You sure you're LIE m8?

Yes. But now that you bring the subject up, your thought process during this exchange not only clearly evidences 1D Ni, it also tells something else. For being so conceited about your Ti, it seems pretty weak. You sure it is not your PoLR?

[niffer]

Nope, that is wrong. The supervisor base is the supervisee's HA. It's the main reason the supervision ITR ever happens. +Se of SEE is similar to HA of EII. Whereas -Se, base of SLE, is nowhere to be found in EII's behavior. Hence, it cannot be in their HA. The opposite doesn't make any sense.

...

Lol. Please quote any Model B or other socionics literature that states any of this.

This is gonna be a hard sell for you at this point for anyone reading it...

[lavos]

...

Lol. Please quote any Model B or other socionics literature that states any of this.

This is gonna be a hard sell for you at this point for anyone reading it...

Who knows, perhaps somebody who doesn't have Ti PoLR reads it and makes perfect sense of it. But if that isn't the case, I don't really care.

[niffer]

@lavos I think you just believe what you want in a way that supports your views. There's no evidence that the signs get flipped around for how the Id and Superego get identified in Model B. (If this were the case, it would have several elements that would be in direct conflict with Model A, e.g. the polr thing you brought up which apparently didn't register to you as being contradictory, and it doesn't do that.)

Hey wait a minute, if I have Ti as my polr though (according to your views), and Ti is the source of all selfishness, then I should be low in selfishness too.

[lavos]

Hey wait a minute, if I have Ti as my polr though (according to your views), and Ti is the source of all selfishness, then I should be low in selfishness too

Not Ti; -Se/+Si. But sure, if that makes you feel less triggered. But then it means you are mistyped.

[niffer]

I could be any type; it wouldn't make you less wrong.


Sorry for the derail @Crystal .

[Singu]

I wonder how long is this farce going to continue...

It doesn't matter if you say "It says so in Model A, it says so in Model B, Jung said so, Augusta said so, therefore it's correct, therefore I'm right". What matters is whether the explanation actually makes sense, and whether such an explanation actually seems to match with reality.

If you can't even explain or understand how it actually works or how it makes sense, then you are simply deferring to authority, which can be fine, because we all don't have unlimited time or resources to look over everything, and so we simply defer to authority like medical doctors for medical expertise simply because it's practical and convenient.

But we're in a discussion where we claim to understand how people work, and what people's motivations are and how they operate. If you simply appeal to authority and act on faith and then claim that you understand and that you are right about things, then you are being irrational.

So if you can not explain how things work, and are simply acting on faith, then are the "Socionists" and Jung etc. trustworthy and credible? Well, probably not...

As far as I know, "selfishness" is a rather universal concept, and people don't actually have "different kinds of selfishness". There must be a general and an objective way at looking what is selfish. Some people may be less selfish than others, but when we're being selfish, we all pretty much act in the same way.

When we say that "Alphas are selfish, Betas are selfish, Gammas are selfish", then we're simply relabeling "selfish" with Alphas, Betas, which are essentially meaningless in of itself. You say well it's because Ti is selfish, Fi is selfish, then again it's just repeating the same process, relabeling selfish with Ti, Fi, etc.

But the most interesting and the important thing is, how does being selfish work? What are its mechanisms? We don't just want to relabel selfish with something else. We don't just want to observe a certain behavior, and then label it "Merry" and leave it at that. We want an EXPLANATION as to why that is and how it actually works. Never mind being able to PREDICT behaviors from that.

[niffer]

^ triggered lol

[Singu]

The fact is that you can't pin down things like "unselfishness/morality" or "efficiency" into a single fundamental function, because they are acts of creativity. When we're being "unselfish" for example, we are overriding what we were biologically designed to do, such as eating, avoiding pain, having sex or whatever. We would for example, give food to a starving child, even though we ourselves are starving, because we have decided that that is the unselfish/moral thing to do. Being moral sometimes means deliberately doing the opposite of our biological imperatives. The moral decisions that we make are I'm sure complicated and creative, such as that they're based on our belief systems, the society that we live in and its cultures, our environment, how we feel about another person or people in general, empathy and sympathy, and so on.

There is no inborn ability where we were just "born" to do those things, and by that I mean I'm sure you weren't born with the ability to know that giving your food to a starving child is the unselfish and moral thing to do. It was more or less an act of creativity, and through the accumulated process of your own life experience as well as your own belief system.

So it seems like things like selfishness/unselfishness are emergent phenomenons, and they still lack proper explanations on how they actually work, because we don't yet have a clear theory on consciousness. It can't be simply be explained by biology or DNA, or God forbid, functions.

[Bertrand]

hey guys trust doctors when it comes to life and death medical advice but advice pertaining to how people's minds work is off limits and you should only decide for yourself. okay

[Sol]

What matters is whether the explanation actually makes sense, and whether such an explanation actually seems to match with reality.

The main what matters is the prediction based on the model matches the reality and does this helps to improve something.
Explanation is secondary. But to try use something we prefer to have reasonable explanation beforehand, though explanation is just a model, not a reality. You may to have any bs as explanation how something works - it's ok until you may use it.
Jung gave reasonable explanation for the core theory, Augustinavichiute gave it for IR. While Gulenko, for example - gave almost nothing based on doubtful.
Jung's core theory fits to my experience. And IR fit. To check them thoroughly I prefered to have them as authorities and to see the clear reason in what they said. In other case I'd never tried to check it and get chance to find it correct. In this aspect the authority matter too.

> We want an EXPLANATION as to why that is

we want to like the behavior of other. why he behaves such and how to name it - is always secondary
if we do not like how other one behaves against our interests - we say him selfish. it's the core

in the context of types. if we get in relations what we like - we have them mostly as good IR. such people look as lesser selfish for us

[Singu]

If you could explain how typing works, then simple, you could type with 99%+ accuracy, because you can explain precisely what you are doing right and wrong. You can explain each and every steps and its processes, and you can analyze exactly what is happening, and what you are doing wrong.

If you could explain how ITR works, then simple, you could predict relationships with 99%+ accuracy.

But such things are not possible, because there are no such explanations in Socionics.

[Singu]

hey guys trust doctors when it comes to life and death medical advice but advice pertaining to how people's minds work is off limits and you should only decide for yourself. okay

So you're saying that "Socionists", and people like Gulenko and others are trustworthy and credible.

[Bertrand]

i don't start from a position of mistrust... but it probably has to do with dual orientation, I feel like I sort of understand your position, but realize gulenko is not K4m

[Number 9 large]

but realize gulenko is not K4m

Wow my wwhole life was a lie

[Chthonic Daydream]

I see Gulenko as a brilliant man and props to him for making sense of socionics. Granted it's his own, though. But I don't like his model, nor his work.
I see the model in itself, along with some parts such as the DCNH, as nothing more but a way of reinventing the wheel. And i feel like he is trying too hard sometimes.

That being said, no, I won't entrust him with removing my liver.

[Singu]

i don't start from a position of mistrust... but it probably has to do with dual orientation, I feel like I sort of understand your position, but realize gulenko is not K4m

It's not to do with "dual orientation", and even then, you'd have to explain how that works. And if you were to explain dual orientation, then you'd have to start with the explanations from the scratch, such as "How does Fi work?" "How does Model A work?" and "How does ITR work?". And then, I'm sure that you can't actually come up with a reasonable explanation, because no such explanation actually exists in Socionics. At best, it only comes up with something that is very vague and half-baked.

So people just say all these things, like Model A, Model B, -Fe/+Fi ignoring, etc, that only gives a semblance of being "scientific-y" and authoritative. It gives an appearance that they know what they're talking about. And yet these people have no idea what those symbols or names actually mean, nor do they even understand how they work, mainly because no such explanations actually exist. Science mainly works because there are explanations on how they work, from the very start to the very end. It builds up on explanations that lead to more explanations.

It's what you'd call "cargo cult science". It looks like science, it pretends to be science by imitating the style of science, but it's not actually science. And if you say that "It's not supposed to be science", then it's just something that is irrational, just like some other forms of irrationalities, like astrology, new-age, alternative medicine and all other sorts of nonsense.

[Bertrand]

it seems you've identified science with absolute truth which gives it Godlike significance such that anything not within its current boundaries is attacked like a false God and its proponents are heretics... I don't think science itself stands for that kind of ideological faith in it though, its sort of the scientism of science worshipers and not actual scientists, because science itself entails a degree of pyrhonian skepticism as one of its base properties and it is precisely that which separates it from garden variety fanaticism