On my real type (EII)— Aushura, Beebe

[Braingel]

My Fe working against my own self and others is the complete contrary of model G’s whole “social mission”. My Fe is not 4D, in even that model. This is why I am untypable, because it’s incorrigible, where I behave 4D Fe-, and it types by behavior, and yet assumes I would have this as social mission. This isn’t my life focus and is a defense to trauma and abuse, where the neurosis shows itself and is an arsenal— this is not my “life purpose” and human design for this society…

[necrosebud]

People can speculate and relate to multiple types but I see Fi/Te etc. two sides of the same coin so it is ultimately about how they ‘dualize’ (on a more fundamental level than socionics duality relationship) which to me indicates their type besides I’ve definitely noticed people are fluid and dynamic enough (based on the demands of their environment) to come across differently esp when attempting to distinguish on a such a fine level like with different schools of thought, MBTI included. People just have diff ideas of how Jung’s types translate onto reality

I don’t know about LSE valuing Ni more than Fi tho

also im not “necro rose” it’s just necrose(bud) necrosis/rose/rosebud portmanteau

[Muira]

When @Metaphor had told me that I am an EII a year plus ago in my G thread, I had been surprised, and tried see why he’d think this from a POV of WSD, which I assumed he was using.. He has been able to correctly identify me as an EII, but I’d no idea he was using that model, nor did I know anything of it.

Thats the same guy who typed me ILE-Ti Sp 7. Interesting

[Braingel]

People type me based on my vomit and how this looks, which is Fe. They assume for me to produce Fe spillage, it is Fe. But the Fe couldn’t even digest well in my conscious to begin with, to where it pushed up in a neurotic, immature, toxic way that works against myself and others. It’s not me being a “difficult” person and negativist dichotomy type person, as I one is truly difficult or easy to be around, as those are in time frames that pedicure this, relative to one’s health.

People don’t look at what caused me to throw up in the first of places, and the digestion that took place, and resulted in my throwing up of this all… In the nasty, corrosive acid that is my behavior of this kind when it comes out and is a nuisance at best and is toxic as its worst.

For people to procure eie for me is not in itself completely unworthy, as this would be the shadow state that is being typed, and most people typing by what they see (being sensors that they mostly are), are gonna abide this as my type..

People can speculate and relate to multiple types but I see Fi/Te etc. two sides of the same coin so it is ultimately about how they ‘dualize’ (on a more fundamental level than socionics duality relationship) which to me indicates their type besides I’ve definitely noticed people are fluid and dynamic enough (based on the demands of their environment) to come across differently esp when attempting to distinguish on a such a fine level like with different schools of thought, MBTI included. People just have diff ideas of how Jung’s types translate onto reality

I don’t know about LSE valuing Ni more than Fi tho

also im not “necro rose” it’s just necrose(bud) necrosis/rose/rosebud portmanteau

In SCS, there’s what is called the mental and vital track.. The mental ring is closer to what is “valued” in that model, what’s conscious. An LSE would have mental Te, Si, Fe and Ni

[Braingel]

Thats the same guy who typed me ILE-Ti Sp 7. Interesting

Metaphor overtypes intuition a little, but he’s overall a decent typist. I mean, I always knew my enneagram tritype and core, but he got me correct as a 4, 461 tritype (he types it 416 order though, because of the trialectical theory) and he got me correctly typed as an EII, typed me model G IEI-N. I mean IEI/EII would be the correct model G typing, I’m an Fi-Ni social mission, but since that model is about behavior, it tries pin me as eie-h (not G, the students). And I do behave like a 4D Fe- type, but it’s because of abuse and trauma and the whole shadow, my shadow is Fe-.

[necrosebud]

You could be EII
But you just don’t have enough in you to shut an LSE up with morals

do all EIIs necessarily want to “shut LSE up with morals?” tho
some might want to subtly exert influence for example, unless something explicitly calls for directly addressing it and even so through desired (by the LSE) influence not steamrolling
or perhaps you meant it that way…

[Braingel]

I took this (sky’s) as a half joke and a half ITR dynamic in a filatova and modern socionics ITR, which indeed, I’m afar from being an eii in those models, but I’m mostly throwing those models into the trash, because they’re too behavioral.

[Braingel]

Whilst all typology has a behavioral component, one’s without any psychological deep focus to me are wasted times..

[Braingel]

So, prior to my traumatization and abuse, I had REALLY fit the characterization of an EII’s ignored Fe in Aushura, where I would unconsciously take care of others’ emotions, whenever they distressed of.. This was present in me as a little girl, there was one time I’d gotten a crying girl who stubbed her toe to the nurse and I walked her and put her bleeding finger in a drinking fountain… And when my grandmother had cried in front of me, I had of her embraced… I will try find the picture.. I was super absorbent of this, and I had even online before, reached out to people on social media whose documentaries I’d seen on Tv and offered them my own consolation, this was as a teenager.. Bit after my abuse took its hold upon me, my Fe became arsenal.

I believe that Beebe and Aushura view the ignoring function the same in sense it’s an ID, but in that specific placement, they focused on different potentialities on its manifestation. I had not even remembered I was like that as a little girl and a bit earlier in teen, because my Fe now just is completely neurotic..

[Braingel]

So, prior to my traumatization and abuse, I had REALLY fit the characterization of an EII’s ignored Fe in Aushura, where I would unconsciously take care of others’ emotions, whenever they distressed of.. This was present in me as a little girl, there was one time I’d gotten a crying girl who stubbed her toe to the nurse and I walked her and put her bleeding finger in a drinking fountain… And when my grandmother had cried in front of me, I had of her embraced… I will try find the picture.. I was super absorbent of this, and I had even online before, reached out to people on social media whose documentaries I’d seen on Tv and offered them my own consolation, this was as a teenager.. Bit after my abuse took its hold upon me, my Fe became arsenal.

I believe that Beebe and Aushura view the ignoring function the same in sense it’s an ID, but in that specific placement, they focused on different potentialities on its manifestation. I had not even remembered I was like that as a little girl and a bit earlier in teen, because my Fe now just is completely neurotic..

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...bf4b8376be01c&

As you can see, when I had written that as a teen… I had said “something snapped”.. I believe that the whole “when it snapped” is the whole metaphor I had made with the flood gate… with it unleashing and whatnot, I was correct, that scs and beebe just define the ignoring at different health levels.

[Braingel]

My Fe used to be just like it is defined in an EII’s in an aushura, and now, my Fe is like how Beebe defines an FiNe’s shadow. It’s trauma. I was correct, that Beebe pathfinder’s it and focuses on it in a different potentiality of health, than of aushura. They don’t work against one another and compliment and complete what they both blinded in, which I knew even before I had the remembrance of my childhood self.

[Braingel]

When I’d written that, I was literally describing my shadow, my entire metaphor with the flood gate.. But I’d used the words “something snapped”, as I’d no conscious of that being a shadow change.

[Braingel]

“I didn’t even think twice”. Unconscious/vital Fe.

[Braingel]

My Fe used to be just like it is defined in an EII’s in an aushura, and now, my Fe is like how Beebe defines an FiNe’s shadow. It’s trauma. I was correct, that Beebe pathfinder’s it and focuses on it in a different potentiality of health, than of aushura. They don’t work against one another and compliment and complete what they both blinded in, which I knew even before I had the remembrance of my childhood self.

Pathologizes *

[Braingel]

That something “snapping” was my unconscious Fe that harbored my trauma and abuse bleeding up in an ubridled, neurotic, oppositional/working dissonant with myself and others. That something “snapping” was too much abuse and bullying and trauma a little girl could handle.

[Braingel]

I don’t expect people to understand this, what I’m saying, unless they know classical socio. Because I’m not an eii outside of this…

[Braingel]

That something “snapping” was my unconscious Fe that harbored my trauma and abuse bleeding up in an ubridled, neurotic, oppositional/working dissonant with myself and others. That something “snapping” was too much abuse and bullying and trauma a little girl could handle.

To where only unconscious mechanisms could shoot up to survive emotional, physical and sexual trauma.

[Braingel]

Arguably what I am saying is also Se super ego..

And at the time I had written that as a teen, I dealt with a lot of anxiety from trauma and being ultra sensitive to energy. That anxiety isn’t there anymore, I seldom deal with anxiety, but at the time as I was emerging into the adolescence and transition and rapid energy shift and my whole shadow, and trying navigate a world I was and still am unmade for with school and peers and people in general, I was very anxious in that time phase.

By that point, I was fully disintegrated into 2, as well.. Which you may have been able pick up from my language.. I disintegrated into 2 when my shadow hit, and you could easily have mistyped me as an enneagram 2..

When I had made this https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...4ff69de996d35&
I was fully disintegrated into 2, giving away to get, not being naturally a caring person at all, but giving to others so I can impose unto them, to see my own trauma and care about me.. And to acknowledge my own giftedness and to receive care and compassion..

[Braingel]

All the unhealthy Fe use and all the 2 disintegration behavior are my reactions to being severely abused and bullied. My Fi lead predisposed an Fe fall, like that, with what I was faced. And my highly sensitive, introverted and withdrawn and contemplative temperament and differences (neurodiversity) turnt me into a 4 core with being received in an environment where I was rejected and where I got bid worthless, even called a “worthless piece of shit” and a “stupid girl” amid names worse, by my father.. Primarily for my autism behaviors, but also just things unrelated. And both an Fi dom and 4 core at a 2 line under severe neurosis and stress… behave extroverted and histrionic..

[Braingel]

Arguably, an Fi dom core 4 is the most histrionic potential type in behavior if they’re severely traumatized, because they’ll move into very unhealthful age, and then 4 goes right into 2, the most histrionic and dramatic enneagram type.

[Braingel]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...bf4b8376be01c&

As you can see, when I had written that as a teen… I had said “something snapped”.. I believe that the whole “when it snapped” is the whole metaphor I had made with the flood gate… with it unleashing and whatnot, I was correct, that scs and beebe just define the ignoring at different health levels.

What I had pleaded to be unrid of was my shadow.. I didn’t even like the shadow, likely, because it opposes my inherent essence and values. As how Beebe entailed the description of the oppositional/ignored. I had called the shadow “it”. Very ending of sentence.

[Braingel]

All in all, these revelations I’d tonight , are very healing for myself… I mean, even Qaz, who triggered me immensely, has spurred me into deep delving more and I extracted major insights.. I had revelations about typology and models and a vision for things that I’d before this and was going post them in my other thread, but I got swept off my feet in this deep analysis.. But it’s very healing and very liberating, so this is alright. This is honestly some of the most healing means I’ve intrapsychically had in a long, long while..

And also very good, is that indeed, I was right of how closely connected Beebe and aushura have, and rh things that “differ” merely are just potentialities defining differently for the placements that are ultimately equivocal.

[Braingel]

I always knew that shit wasn’t even apart of my true essence.. and now I just more broadly understand all the why’s as to why I’ve developed the way I have, in my face of adversity.

[Braingel]

I don’t expect people to understand this, what I’m saying, unless they know classical socio. Because I’m not an eii outside of this…

I mean, I am an IEI in most schools, but even in those, indeed, my shadow is why I first got typed eie in those.. An iei is more equivocal to a classical EII.. Like even how Fe ignoring defined there is like Fe+ in G…. Which I did used to fit, as I showed in my screen shot of what I’d written.. But yeah, anyhow. I believe SCS is the most accurate form of socio, and is the most deeply psychological.

[Braingel]

I mean, I am an IEI in most schools, but even in those, indeed, my shadow is why I first got typed eie in those.. An iei is more equivocal to a classical EII.. Like even how Fe ignoring defined there is like Fe+ in G…. Which I did used to fit, as I showed in my screen shot of what I’d written.. But yeah, anyhow. I believe SCS is the most accurate form of socio, and is the most deeply psychological.

(But not all iei’s in modern will be eii, or even intuitive in general.. They can be super egoic NiFe, like SLI.. they can be ese with their polr Ni, and other things)..

[Braingel]

But it’s actually kind of unlikely for a modern iei to be a classical iei…. because of the nature of mental and whatnot.. I mean, transfer overs can happen, but it would be uncommon. Because of the function placements drastically being defined differently in what they mean in terms of focus.

[Distance]

Re: healing, great news.

It means one has the plasticity to modify in a push pull dynamic, ala the limic triggers in these scenarios.

I've noticed experimenting with complex problems in the past, where it is g loaded exclusively, i.e., not on the emotional spectrum, that i gained in cognitive ability like a permanent change. It takes considerable effort to undue inherent blocks, that is these bio blocks, which makes me think we are not doomed and mired into a permanent stone costume, unlike what you hear in a consensus in society sometimes via experts.

I've undone certain neuroticisms before too, and you have to have heart to break thru barriers. It seems will and due care, character traits, translates into wearing a permanent costume or not.

Not that anything is curable or moveable in 100 percent fashion, but it allows movements in new directions creating an event horizon. And you might just transcend it after all when you circumscribe it in full circle.

My motto has been to exceed barriers, even as a kid. I believe in potential and in infinity in outward directions.

The sky is limiting.

[Braingel]

When I was 13, I had made my own saying the sky is never the limit; the limit is how far you will allow yourself to go.. (Very Ne replacing Se— Ne unseen potential inside replaced with physical observation of barriers).

[Braingel]

So, a few days ago, I had spoken to both Lena and Karniv. Because of recent events in this forum and discord, I hadn’t written about it. I had given my theory about this.. Karniv and Lena both agreed with me that shadows in beebe can potentially go right into SCS.

Lena even had told me Aushura spoke of shadows..

I imagine because she passed and never got complete her model, she was never able to expand upon them, but she had the idea that ill health would fall in through the super ego and then affect higher dimensionality functions, where it can make means to look highly neurotic.

[Braingel]

I also want make it clear, I don’t type as an EII in any model but SCS. I am not a mental Fe type there, and that model is far more about how functions result in outlooks and how they process than of behavior. It would be ridiculous to type me as Fi by valued behavior.

[Braingel]

I type myself as an IEI in every model but classical aushura. Whilst I am a very unusual case for model G, because I am a 4, my self-type in that model would be IEI.. I fit Ni+ Fi- social mission and Si+, irrationality and result dichotomy too well.. Here you can see my Instagram to get this grasp of; https://www.instagram.com/movingmind...&utm_source=qr

But in scs, the only dichotomies that really matter are static v dynamic (with slightly different definitions than of now), producing v accepting, evaluatory v observatory, mental v vital, and then not dichotomies, but super ego blocks. I have intuited most of scs and haven’t formally studied it and have made my own fill-ins.. Mist these dichotomies aren’t even in western or modernized socio..

[Braingel]

Something also worth saying is that apart of SCS’s Ne can fit modern Ni, such as being able to grasp the underlying internal content of an object.. This means that a lot of scs Ne egos can very easily go right into new socio Ni types.. SCS is closest to John Beebe than if anything else… I mean it’s classical aushura’s own work, which is a bit of Jung and mbti, but scs has expanded it in a way, that I’ve noticed is reminiscent of Beebe.

[Braingel]

I am most likely IN(F) in Jung, not the Fi IF(N).. if this also clarifies anything.. I know that a lot of people have been super skeptical of me mostly abandoning my IEI self-type in light of now identifying as an EII.. This is because I give more presidency to cognition than of behavior… In behavioral models, my self-type would be an absurdity, indeed. I am glad that people see actually, that I’m an IEI> EIE or that one awful SEE typing I got, overall, by behavior, because indeed, I have beta NF behavior and fit Ne ignoring and Te polr.. But this isn’t how things work in this model that aligns beebe, and beebe is the best model to focus on for myself, with how pathological I am.

[Braingel]

You can argue that my only wanting focus on one model is also Ne ignoring behavior, lol.. But in scs, it would be Ne ego, with valuing something that looks at the underlying mechanisms and content of a person (which in this case would be mental processes and outlooks of biases that inform world views and behavior to begin with, not focusing on observable behavior, and it would be me replacing my Se PolR— where Se relies on what is outwardly observable like behavior with Ne essence focus).

[Squirrel]

Model G is basically a system made for Se egos. Which is no surprise, because Gulenko is actually an Se ego his own self. Others may try argue, “but it is the only system that considers a plethora of possibilities”.. Yes, it considers possibilities, but based on physically observable qualities and features of a person, and their expressed, seen behavior. This is Se replacing Ne. This is why Gulenko is an XSI, and I type him as an ESI, because TiNe super ego form of mental functions make far more sense than of FiSe super ego/mental, and he is quite open to Ti systems, and hyper focuses on peoples’ placements in society.

It is Se replacing Ne to focus on possibilities by physical observation and what is concretely presenting, and to make an entire model based around “type images”. Even Gulenko’s book descriptions are based on physical characteristics and observed behavior. It never goes into deep cognition or what’s underneath the behavior and of why it happens.

To what extent do you think the type differs between the three systems (SCS, Model G and modern socionics ) ?

[Braingel]

To what extent do you think the type differs between the three systems (SCS, Model G and modern socionics ) ?

Hi, I will answer you several ways, as I don’t know if you intend this as from the types I mentioned with EII, LSI, ESI and IEI, or generally. I’m going to assume the ladder, but I’ll brief the former.

Well, SCS is largely based on the motivation and outlook of functions and how they process inside and then project outward.. The other two are largely behavioral, but they put different dimensionality and archetypes to them… This makes it less likely to consistently remain the same type in all three of these things, which others seem to miss.. What I can say for myself as I’m an NF in all systems…

They all just base on completely different metrics to type; motivation and formation of outlooks (scs), outright values behavior and its strength that gets put to value formation (wss), and micro expressions and behavior and a rigid archetype (shs) that gives the illusion of not being rigid with all the dcnh and accentuation combo.

Now far the other 4 mentioned types… An EII in WSS seeks practicality, in G, it is more about emphasizing forgiveness and they are able to be practical, because they have 3D Te suggestive.. And in SCS, an eii is closer to an IEI’s Te polr, in that the Te is vital and not thought of. Even in my scs questionnaire, the Te is the hardest thing to answer.. The IEI is someone who is very conscious of practicality and of space…. The eii doesn’t have mental Si so isn’t.. The ESi and LSI fixate on Ne and will often mistake their own self as good in these areas and think about them a lot, but base it on experience instead, which is what you see a person like Gulenko doing….. It doesn’t matter at all for experience in western and in G, and instead, the wss is just stubborn and avoids Ne and in wss, they lose energy from it, making Ne polr in those models unlikely to even be mental Ne polr in classic…

Some of the informational elements also change definition in slight.. For instance, Ne in scs is partially about the internality of an object, which is Ni in modern. Fe is about screaming and emotional display and not Se at all in SCS, in other models this can be both Fe or Se. But an Fe ego would consciously do this for an effect and impact on a mood, it wouldn’t be some unconscious emotional display (which is my own case).

Which brings me to another point; EII is not aware of its impact on others’ moods and an IEI is, making an IEI much more cognizantly in control of how others receive them… They aren’t as aware of their relations and distance from other people… (For SCS). The IEI is more conscious of time.. I am quite gifted in time recognition, but it happens unconsciously. I rarely need set an alarm, as my unconscious naturally wakens me to the time of my needing wake up, generally I’ll wake up 5 minutes to a half hour before I even need be up.. Doesn’t matter what time it is, how tired I am, how many hours of sleep I’d gotten. I will also often walk out of a thing in the right time when others are ready to leave.. I just somehow know it’s time to go.

The biggest difference SCS has that G and WSS have not is the whole mental/vital track of conscious and unconscious.. You don’t need be conscious of your impact on others’ moods to be Fe in G or in WSS, just expressive..

ESI and LSI are conscious of the same things and not.. But their ego placements swap.. So an ESI is more open to Ti info in the role and an LSI is with Fi.. The LSI is receptive to any relational placement and an ESI is with placement and hierarchies.. And rules.. ESI relies on experience for Ne and Te and LSI, it’s Fe and Ne. So Pe and Je ego and super ego and ego in 3D and 1D. Static.

Awareness has significantly less to do with the two behavioral models. This is why I say that SCS is far more motivationally-influenced.

Something I also excluded is the polr is more like the suggestive on scs…..

[Squirrel]

Hi, I will answer you several ways, as I don’t know if you intend this as from the types I mentioned with EII, LSI, ESI and IEI, or generally. I’m going to assume the ladder, but I’ll brief the former.

Well, SCS is largely based on the motivation and outlook of functions and how they process inside and then project outward.. The other two are largely behavioral, but they put different dimensionality and archetypes to them… This makes it less likely to consistently remain the same type in all three of these things, which others seem to miss.. What I can say for myself as I’m an NF in all systems…

They all just base on completely different metrics to type; motivation and formation of outlooks (scs), outright values behavior and its strength that gets put to value formation (wss), and micro expressions and behavior and a rigid archetype (shs) that gives the illusion of not being rigid with all the dcnh and accentuation combo.

Now far the other 4 mentioned types… An EII in WSS seeks practicality, in G, it is more about emphasizing forgiveness and they are able to be practical, because they have 3D Te suggestive.. And in SCS, an eii is closer to an IEI’s Te polr, in that the Te is vital and not thought of. Even in my scs questionnaire, the Te is the hardest thing to answer.. The IEI is someone who is very conscious of practicality and of space…. The eii doesn’t have mental Si so isn’t.. The ESi and LSI fixate on Ne and will often mistake their own self as good in these areas and think about them a lot, but base it on experience instead, which is what you see a person like Gulenko doing….. It doesn’t matter at all for experience in western and in G, and instead, the wss is just stubborn and avoids Ne and in wss, they lose energy from it, making Ne polr in those models unlikely to even be mental Ne polr in classic…

Some of the informational elements also change definition in slight.. For instance, Ne in scs is partially about the internality of an object, which is Ni in modern. Fe is about screaming and emotional display and not Se at all in SCS, in other models this can be both Fe or Se. But an Fe ego would consciously do this for an effect and impact on a mood, it wouldn’t be some unconscious emotional display (which is my own case).

Which brings me to another point; EII is not aware of its impact on others’ moods and an IEI is, making an IEI much more cognizantly in control of how others receive them… They aren’t as aware of their relations and distance from other people… (For SCS). The IEI is more conscious of time.. I am quite gifted in time recognition, but it happens unconsciously. I rarely need set an alarm, as my unconscious naturally wakens me to the time of my needing wake up, generally I’ll wake up 5 minutes to a half hour before I even need be up.. Doesn’t matter what time it is, how tired I am, how many hours of sleep I’d gotten.

The biggest difference SCS has that G and WSS have not is the whole mental/vital track of conscious and unconscious.. You don’t need be conscious of your impact on others’ moods to be Fe in G or in WSS, just expressive..

ESI and LSI are conscious of the same things and not.. But their ID ego placements swap.. So an ESI is more open to Ti info in the role and an LSI is with Fi.. The LSI is receptive to any relational placement and an ESI is with placement and hierarchies.. And rules.. ESI relies on experience for Ne and Te and LSI, it’s Fe and Ne. So Pe and Je ego and super ego and ego in 3D and 1D. Static.

Awareness has significantly less to do with the two behavioral models. This is why I say that SCS is far more motivationally-influenced.

Very informative, thank you

[Braingel]

In case you didn’t see, I made a correction to a made typo, it isn’t just ID, it’s all ego, and I gave another example for my unconscious 4D Ni.. I also believe that SCS focuses a bit too much on attachment enneagram cores with social norms, this is something I disagree on, but attachment types are the most common, so it’s not really unfair they based this as a mean in it.. But a frustration core wouldn’t care as much about social norms, and especially if they’re a triple hexad, or a type like 8 and 5 core rejection cores..

[Squirrel]

In case you didn’t see, I made a correction to a made typo, it isn’t just ID, it’s all ego, and I gave another example for my unconscious 4D Ni.. I also believe that SCS focuses a bit too much on attachment enneagram cores with social norms, this is something I disagree on, but attachment types are the most common, so it’s not really unfair they based this as a mean in it.. But a frustration core wouldn’t care as much about social norms, and especially if they’re a triple hexad, or a type like 8 and 5 core rejection cores..

Checked it , thank you

Is "norms" the same as the second dimension in the theory of the dimensions of functions ? I personally prefer to consider the second dimension as an understanding of the basics and principles of the function rather than considering it as following the norms

[Braingel]

Checked it , thank you

Is "norms" the same as the second dimension in the theory of the dimensions of functions ? I personally prefer to consider the second dimension as an understanding of the basics and principles of the function rather than considering it as following the norms

Well, scs believes a person doesn’t discriminate against social norms with their higher domestically functions, but you push beyond them in the base, from my understanding.. I also added a note, that in scs, the polr in modern is more like the super egoic polr in this model; you want to be good at it and are aspiring in this.. But it’s also kind of like this in the role as well, with how open the role is.. The 1D in scs goes against social norms and isn’t receptive, and this is where I disagree and where I believe something like enneagram can motivate this.. A type like 8, 4 and 5 may push against social norms even when they’re good at an element, because the social norms are lesser built for their own emotional outlooks and reactions…

This also just goes with neurodiversity like autism and adhd as well.. The “social norms” literally aren’t built for these neurologic blueprints so if an ND person pushes against a social norm and isn’t receptive to it, it doesn’t automatically mean that element is low D.. Of course an autistic person will be more able to see why there is a norm if they’ve a higher element of their autism doesn’t disable that perspective… But it doesn’t mean they’ve to agree with it, maybe just see where it comes from.. Then you also have trauma and shadow blocks and just other things…