Theory: Conflictor's abilities are what you covet most in yourself, not dual's

[Muddy]

Neat little thought I wanted touch on. My theory is that the super-ego functions are the areas where wish to develop in ourselves the most, rather then the super-id. I want to note that I think it is strictly the abilities of the conflictors that we covet, not their behaviors and mannerisms.

The super-ego is denied to us in favor of the ego. We do not consciously choose ourselves which type we become, instead it is something we our born with whether we like it or not. Though out our lives we might begin to wish to experience develop the alternative that was rejected to us by our type, which corresponds to what our conflictor was hand-given.

One of the reasons I believe conflict relations are as unpleasant as they are is because they serve as a constant reminder of what we want to be but can't. Having our super-ego as their ego, they are constantly showing off we what lack without producing anything to help us rise to their level.

The phenomenon with this is even though our conflictors most readily display the abilities that we covet, it is our duals that actually help us realize ourselves in the super-ego. Our dual produces our super-ego aspirations as a by-product of their ego and do not hold much personal attachment to it, and thus readily share, provide and teach us how to develop it ourselves. Whereas our conflictor is condescending towards our super-ego and shows us how much better they are at it then we are, our dual shows willing shows us how to develop it.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think the extroverted conflictor partner is actually much more jealous of the introverted partner in conflictor relationships. The conflictor introvert is wary/hateful of the conflictor extrovert because they have better power to harm their external reputation and image status. Both might be a little jealous, but the extrovert more jealous in a pure raw way. (especially as far as abilities go because the extroverted conflictor will always wish they could have the talents and traits of the introvert.) The intro will just find the extro conflictor's traits boring and stupid and overrated. The introvert just doesn't like feeling tugged around all of them of finding them interesting and wanting to connect with them one day and the next needing to split up for their own health and finding them vulgar/offensive/stupid/hypocritical/satanic/evil/shitty.

[Saoirse]

This is a very interesting post. When I read my middle/high school journals, I think all of my angst and self-doubts came from my Se PoLR, so I guess I would have felt better if I were better at Se (though this may be biased on the American school experience--I'm sure some other cultures' school environments value other IEs, like Te and/or Si are probably more valued than Se in Asia). Additionally, I recently realized that all of my best improv comedy performances occur when I let my Se take over a bit.

Our relationship with how our dual uses our super ego is definitely better than our relationship with how our conflictor uses it, but I am not sure that this is due to our dual being more willing to teach it to us. In fact, I would say it's the opposite--it's better because our dual doesn't care if we're good at it, so they just take care of it for us. Whereas our conflictor sees it as a major deficiency--our super ego is their ego, the lens through which their entire world is viewed--making them more likely to try to teach us how to use those IEs (if they have initially positive feelings toward us/feel responsible for us for some reason).

I love when my LSE friends just do Se stuff for me. I think it would stress me out a lot if they kept encouraging me to do it myself (e.g., telling waiters what we want, telling a group what to do, acting appropriately and quickly on new info). It would make me feel like they think I am an ineffective/subpar person by standards that I view as silly.

I'm a pretty even-tempered person (enneagram 9 ) and one of the very few times I ever snapped at any of my friends was when my LSI friend kept pushing me to do more Se things like having sensory adventures (going out partying, drinking more, trying drugs). I told her I just don't want to do it and that I hate when people tell me to do it because I feel like they're judging me for not wanting to do it.

I do think being good at Se is super cool (I came off as Se valuing in my typing thread), but I don't think that I covet Se in myself particularly--I seem to have accepted it's just not me, no matter how aware I am of the fact that my life would be better if I were better at it.

I also don't think I covet Ti in myself. As someone trained in formal math and probability theory, I think I have all the Ti abilities I personally could find useful or want--even though that's a very superficial level of Ti--so I feel like I am a bit dismissive of it. When I journal, I never write about how I wish I was better at thinking logically. It's often about how I wish I was more productive, which seems more related to Te.

This is all just me though. Maybe your theory is broadly true, with a few people who are exceptions for some reason. It's hard to prove/disprove a Socionics theory. I will write up a theory of my own inspired by yours soon.

[Rebelondeck]

I think some would covet any ability that they think, in the moment, would help them cope with a complicated situation. I certainly didn't. I think conflicting types force us to think outside of our boxes, which can be uncomfortable but not necessarily bad. Our super-egos will force us to think differently inside our boxes, which also can make us uncomfortable but in a familiar way. Our duals are similar to super-egos except that they tend to offer alternate thinking in a supportive way, which doesn't get us out of our boxes. I think we tend be jealous of the ability to get solutions more so than actual characteristics. This insecurity in one's own abilities tend to be among the young or the disheartened......

a.k.a. I/O

[Exodus]

No I don't agree. Many people do not see any reason why the Vulnerable function has any importance whatsoever - why then would they want to be good at it? Even if people DO want to be good at it, it's more in the sense that they have realized that practically it is something necessary to achieve their valued-function goals, they don't derive enjoyment from it in itself. We may be unaware of just how much we do "like" the super-id functions, though.

[Muddy]

No I don't agree. Many people do not see any reason why the Vulnerable function has any importance whatsoever - why then would they want to be good at it? Even if people DO want to be good at it, it's more in the sense that they have realized that practically it is something necessary to achieve their valued-function goals, they don't derive enjoyment from it in itself. We may be unaware of just how much we do "like" the super-id functions, though.

Perhaps because of too many hits directed towards it which could generate neuroticism and therefore motivate someone to show others that they are capable of it too, as a kind of vengeance? Unless this is your definition of the suggestive function and that the vulnerable doesn't experience neurotic hits, which I thought was the ignoring function. In that case that would contradict the validity of all those "Polr Hit" threads, in which case you got some explaining to do.

[Exodus]

Perhaps because of too many hits directed towards it which could generate neuroticism and therefore motivate someone to show others that they are capable of it too, as a kind of vengeance?

Yes, this is one reason someone might care about it but it's not the norm.

Unless this is your definition of the suggestive function

what is?

and that the vulnerable doesn't experience neurotic hits, which I thought was the ignoring function. In that case that would contradict the validity of all those "Polr Hit" threads, in which case you got some explaining to do.

The idea of a "PoLR hit" is somewhat flawed IMO, exactly because we usually don't care about it.

[carrina]

The idea of a "PoLR hit" is somewhat flawed IMO, exactly because we usually don't care about it.

Hear, hear!
tldr, true that

[carrina]

I think some would covet any ability that they think, in the moment, would help them cope with a complicated situation.

sure, but that doesn't indicate that a person will default to their polr to figure it out lol no way in hell is my immediate thought .

I think conflicting types force us to think outside of our boxes, which can be uncomfortable but not necessarily bad.

I think this is a good thought, one likely rooted in experience. Although I will input that long conversations with the conflictor will probably go right over your head. The superego is better for this type of experience in my opinion.

Our super-egos will force us to think differently inside our boxes, which also can make us uncomfortable but in a familiar way.

not sure what you mean here but given my other response here, i probably agree

Our duals are similar to super-egos except that they tend to offer alternate thinking in a supportive way,

I disagree. some people are not supportive regardless of which IM's they're focusing on. Also, EPs and IPs from opposing quadas, similar? ehhh not sure about that.

which doesn't get us out of our boxes. I think we tend be jealous of the ability to get solutions more so than actual characteristics. use

I'm not in the slightest interested in the type of solutions that my opposing quadra would use. The focus on goals is completely different.

This insecurity in one's own abilities tend to be among the young or the disheartened......

k then

a.k.a. I/O

.

[may]

Perhaps because of too many hits directed towards it which could generate neuroticism and therefore motivate someone to show others that they are capable of it too, as a kind of vengeance? Unless this is your definition of the suggestive function and that the vulnerable doesn't experience neurotic hits, which I thought was the ignoring function. In that case that would contradict the validity of all those "Polr Hit" threads, in which case you got some explaining to do.

I think that neuroticism as a result of too much unmediated exposure w/regard to the polr makes sense. The vulnerable function is in my opinion something that is simply alien, and to no apparent purpose. It's unimportant because there's no real way to make it important, you'd have to know the value and context of something to do that. However, polr hits are memorable, I think. They represent unavoidable facts that pin you to reality. Too many facts that you don't understand then sounds like neuroticism.

[Muddy]

what is?

What I said in the above sentence above that one about the vulnerable.

[Muddy]

I think that neuroticism as a result of too much unmediated exposure w/regard to the polr makes sense. The vulnerable function is in my opinion something that is simply alien, and to no apparent purpose. It's unimportant because there's no real way to make it important, you'd have to know the value and context of something to do that. However, polr hits are memorable, I think. They represent unavoidable facts that pin you to reality. Too many facts that you don't understand then sounds like neuroticism.

This is what thought what applied to the ignoring function, while the Polr is instead of source of constant discomfort and self-criticism.

[may]

I thought this is what applied to the ignoring function, while the Polr is instead of source of constant discomfort and self-criticism.

Right, this is an important distinction to me...
I think that the lead function might be able to inform one's own understanding of their role area. Being very familiar with the intricacies of the leading function implies knowledge of it's limitations. This can translate to implicit knowledge of the outlines of its analogue in the same direction. For example in the case of having strong lead Te (being rational/extroverted/dynamic) this can translate over to understanding of Fe (rational/extroverted/dynamic). While a logical approach will attempt agnosticism towards the ethical domain, a limitation will inevitably be reached. At the limits of logical explanation, ethical ones can begin. While a Te lead cannot easily switch the information of that domain to the Fi domain (rational/introverted/static), Fe is more within the same domain, in terms of what I interpret as the quality of concreteness, thoroughness, and speed of the information.

Ultimately, logical information serves some purpose. That purpose is ethical right? If logical information serves no purpose, I think it can at least be seen as parallel to ethical information. If indeed it does, ultimately, true ethical attitudes would probably also need some connection to reality to be true. In this way, the conversion of information can and does occur between these analogue functions within a single person (i.e. in the same direction).

The idea then extends to all leads and role. Fi to Ti role. Fe to Te role. Ne to Se role. Ni to Si role. Si to Ni role. Se to Ne role.

With regards to sensing and intuitive information I'd see it as the conversion of sensing information to the limits of human imaginative/intuitive understanding. For example "When I see this, I'm able to think of this and this and this" (Se to Ne). And then vice versa, the imaginative field of information, collective or individual, informs what actually feels good or not, collectively or individually speaking.

In one's mirror, the lead and creative are switched and the role instead becomes a polr. The creative is still strong, but since the lead is the area of conclusiveness, there are points that can be translated and converted to the analogue. The creative is, in contrast, ever expanding, making it very difficult to translate to an analogue; all the pieces are moving too much.

The conception of a dual's role (your ignoring) is conceived in terms of one's own role which already could have a structure of understanding as outlined.

Ultimately, duals probably attempt to meet in media res. They clearly do so in terms of the lead, but perhaps they attempt to do so equally in all functions, including the polr. As in the lead, the ignoring and polr find counterparts in one's dual. A difference between the two, however, is that the ignoring can be parsed in terms of one's role, which I think could be informed by the lead. The polr is constantly uncomfortable since it cannot be understood on one's own.

Hope that was relevant to what you're saying.

[The Exception]

I admire the Se ability to achieve objects of desire, to be able to influence the situation and others around them to achieve what they want. I admire their ability to be acutely aware of their physical environment and what goes on in it and to be able to manipulate it and alter it as needed.

I just don't always approve of the methodology that Se types can use to achieve things. Sometimes it's too crude, too blunt, it makes others uncomfortable, its a succeed 'at all costs', 'end justifies the means' philosophy I don't fully approve of.

[Pallas]

Actually, your dual and your conflictor have all the same dimensionalities of functions, but your conflictor values the opposite one to your dual. This is why I hate MBTI notation. If your type is ILE, you have an lead and tend to back that up with a demonstrative. Your SEI dual has an lead with an demonstrative. You seek , so your dual using (your PoLR) in service of is essentially just stabilizing, and you cover up each other's PoLRs so to speak. On the other hand, conflictor ESI uses in service of , so when the both of you use your demonstratives, it leads both of you straight into each other's PoLRs, since the demonstrative functions are the suggestive of the other, and the lead (which is in charge and that can't be changed) is the PoLR of the other. This is the maximum destabilizing relationship. But due to MBTI notation, people think the main thing is just the creative or something. The creative is a strong function, and it's valued, but the interesting relationship between duality and conflict only makes sense if you actually think in socionics terms. This is also related to why in a lot of stories, the hero and villain are quasi-identicals. They have exactly the same functions in terms of strength and dimensionality, but valued exactly the opposite, and one's dual also happens to be the other's conflictor.

[Exodus]

What I said in the above sentence above that one about the vulnerable.

Nah, that would be more like the vulnerable function. The suggestive function is not neurotic but there can be a sense of shame or inadequacy around it. Usually the desire to do good at the Superid functions comes from a healthy place.

[Rebelondeck]

@carrina

no way in hell is my immediate thought .
I find that all types have this reaction; however, when all else fails, we start questioning our own processes and attempt to take an opposite view of our goals, perhaps in a joking way but an opposite view none the less.

not sure what you mean
I look upon Quadras as boxes, which define the limits of a type's self-correction range. It's not Socionics theory so you can ignore.....

The focus on goals is completely different.
Of course. However, when one doesn't achieve and someone else (perhaps of another type) does get it, then the first inclination is to say: "what has that person got that I don't have." Then one may either make up excuses and say woe is me, or attempt to duplicate some behaviours, i.e., when the goal is important enough - if it's not, then most will move on.

a.k.a. I/O

[carrina]

@carrina

no way in hell is my immediate thought .
I find that all types have this reaction; however, when all else fails, we start questioning our own processes and attempt to take an opposite view of our goals, perhaps in a joking way but an opposite view none the less.s

Again, this might be true for some types, not all. And for those that this is true for, its not likely that the response will be to think like the conflictor since they lead with the polr. superego is possible, still very unlikely for most people, and impossible for most.


The focus on goals is completely different.
Of course. However, when one doesn't achieve and someone else (perhaps of another type) does get it, then the first inclination is to say: "what has that person got that I don't have." Then one may either make up excuses and say woe is me, or attempt to duplicate some behaviours, i.e., when the goal is important enough - if it's not, then most will move on.

Again, lots of types are able to do things that you can't, there's no way that the default will be to mimic the least likely types that they will agree with to begin with. For instance, an ESI isn't likely to try to achieve things by taking big risks, even when in a long term relationship with his dual the LIE, let alone by taking the extra step to mimic the conflictor to understand various options. They'd far prefer others do that. Without that assistance, the ESI isn't likely to start running around abandoning past goals for new ones just because they saw an ILE do that and get something they wanted. It'd be more like: "lucky bastard, stupid, but lucky, lord please never let me be that stupid."


a.k.a. I/O

I think your suggestion is cray

[carrina]

Actually, your dual and your conflictor have all the same dimensionalities of functions, but your conflictor values the opposite one to your dual. This is why I hate MBTI notation. If your type is ILE, you have an lead and tend to back that up with a demonstrative. Your SEI dual has an lead with an demonstrative. You seek , so your dual using (your PoLR) in service of is essentially just stabilizing, and you cover up each other's PoLRs so to speak. On the other hand, conflictor ESI uses in service of , so when the both of you use your demonstratives, it leads both of you straight into each other's PoLRs,

I don't know exactly what you're trying to say here, sounds good though.

[Exodus]

Actually, your dual and your conflictor have all the same dimensionalities of functions, but your conflictor values the opposite one to your dual. This is why I hate MBTI notation. If your type is ILE, you have an lead and tend to back that up with a demonstrative. Your SEI dual has an lead with an demonstrative. You seek , so your dual using (your PoLR) in service of is essentially just stabilizing, and you cover up each other's PoLRs so to speak. On the other hand, conflictor ESI uses in service of , so when the both of you use your demonstratives, it leads both of you straight into each other's PoLRs, since the demonstrative functions are the suggestive of the other, and the lead (which is in charge and that can't be changed) is the PoLR of the other. This is the maximum destabilizing relationship. But due to MBTI notation, people think the main thing is just the creative or something. The creative is a strong function, and it's valued, but the interesting relationship between duality and conflict only makes sense if you actually think in socionics terms. This is also related to why in a lot of stories, the hero and villain are quasi-identicals. They have exactly the same functions in terms of strength and dimensionality, but valued exactly the opposite, and one's dual also happens to be the other's conflictor.

This is sort of getting into Model G / Model A2 - type reasoning. The idea is that you have the supervision ("information") rings of elements (FeNiTeSiFe...) and also the benefit ("energy") rings (FeNeTeSe). Model A mainly considers the former while Model G mainly considers the latter (Model A2 includes both). You need functional signs to make sense of this reasoning though.

[Rebelondeck]

@carina
.......extra step to mimic the conflictor......

I didn't suggest that; however, I wonder whether or not you have objectively studied yourself or a family member or a very close friend under very severe stress. I hope you have never had that opportunity but I think the results may surprise you.

a.k.a. I/O

[Pallas]

The idea of a "PoLR hit" is somewhat flawed IMO, exactly because we usually don't care about it.

I would say it's just badly misinterpreted. Examine your nightmares and you'll see what I mean.

[may]

Would you mind elaborating @Muddytextures?
Are you saying that the conflictor represents what you would to experience in life, in a purer form, than the dual represents?

[Muddy]

Would you mind elaborating @Muddytextures?
Are you saying that the conflictor represents what you would to experience in life, in a purer form, than the dual represents?

I don't really have anything more to add to be honest. I mainly wanted to see what other's thoughts were about this.