You take it for granted that your friends' quadra is a good indicator for your own quadra ("I'm a reflection of my peers"Originally Posted by Daft21
-leading).
You take it for granted that your friends' quadra is a good indicator for your own quadra ("I'm a reflection of my peers"
No I don't take it for granted but my family is also mostly Alpha and I think it could be that I valueYou take it for granted that a good indicator for your own quadra is the quadra of your friends ("I'm a reflection of my peers"
because i might had a wrong understanding of
In general, I don't think the people you hate the most from your quadra although I can see why people might sometimes think that for various reasons.
*You are more likely to get closer to people in your quadra, so you see their true flaws as well.
*They can disappoint you because at first you seem so compatible but then you find differences and start having conflicts. This is true for any relationship but it hurts more because you thought things were going so well.
*There is more likely to be a rivalry due to similar interests you are more likely to compete for the same territory.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Interesting idea. I'm sure that these people are not well liked only because of superficial details though. It'd be a good thing to test.
One test I'd like to do is put 16 people representative of each type and see what happens. Another variable to consider is type knowledge, so we could try three experiments, one where the people know nothing about type, one where people know their type but not others, and one where people have their type displayed on their name tags. If they don't take to talking, it might be good to tell them to try and socialize with the others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
No I dislike this personality the most:
maybe I really am a beta after all!
Hate is always a converted form of fear. I don't fear Delta people, they are nice and having shared values is good. I would rather say I hate/fear but also respect the Beta STs who can exercise the IEs that I am insecure with. I see overt force and cluster thinking as threats once they get in the way of broad humanitarian views (
As it is usually said love and hate is not something I comprehend fully. Just some sort of preference over the other. It can be bit pathetic in a way.
There are twisted people in each quadra and in each type.
Generally? I can see my own failures in/
On the other hand some people get stuck in their ways with their insecurities. I possibly try to mold or open up some/
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Does not compute personally. To me fear and hate are completely separate entities. I think you can fear and like something at the same time.?
I want to hear an explanation.
OK, if
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
CuteDoes not compute personally. To me fear and hate are completely separate entities. I think you can fear and like something at the same time.?
I want to hear an explanation.
OK, if
?????????????????????????????????????I hope this helps: My statement is a
Cute
Can you go more into hate? I think you're onto something but I'm not totally clear on it
LIE, because they are fuled by ignorant judgement and consider it empowerment. Generally they are douchbags as well. Coincidentally it's the type I despise the most out of all types. Just the other week one of these was talking shit behind the back of a really good guy who stutters when he speaks. I wanted to break his fucking face.
that's weird, I've never personally encountered a LIE who was a dick--they've always been really well meaning, humble, albeit straightforward (from the point of view of ILI), people... its always been SLE doing their best LIE impression that usually go over the top with it
(not saying it can't happen, just that this has always been my experience, its hard for me to picture LIE being a true dick, a part of effective Te is knowing not to do that stuff, etc)
in fact, I personally feel like I'm more of a dick than any LIE I've ever known. They seem more sensitive in general to the people around them than me
LIE in socionics are ENTJ in mbti right?
rite, MBTI ENTJ = socionics LIE (inasmuch as crossovers are valid--they're all a little different)
In that case my hatered was directed correctly. But perhaps I've overgeneralized.
People barely see the opposite quadra, and the conflicts don't satisfy them, but rather bore them probably. If they even bother with them in the first place. I think the people that conflict most are in your own quadra because you actually take their conflict style seriously because the way they conflict is more obvious to you and you can actually fight back in the same language. Betas complain about people who cause drama, they never talk about the person who minds their own business, but they secretly like the person who causes drama because they talk about them all the time instead of the people who are invisible to them, the ones who lack much emotional involvement and turbulence.
I couldn't imagine what would be worse for a Beta who wants to be and feel right and separate themselves from their opponent... than a Delta who wants to improve relations and keep things objective and helpful for both sides. The Beta might immediately feel "turned off" if you don't match their tone and intensity... I feel like they secretely want you to feel that they are wrong so that they have one less person to care about and one more person on their list of people to not like, it makes things simple and clear, unlike someone who doesn't get along with you yet wants to be closer. Idk I'm not a Beta, but Betas are the most interesting conflict wise and consequently that's what I decided to talk about. xD
Last edited by chrys; 02-25-2017 at 12:16 AM.
totally agree WRT to your assesment of betas. They're the quintessential "hate and love are not opposites, but two sides of the same coin, the true opposite of which is indifference" in other words betas love to hate as much as they love to love, which is why they're so sexual in their interactions and why they have a weird aversion to delta mildness of all things (I, without exaggeration, had a beta try to frame delta not liking provacatory inauthentic hyperbole as some kind of repressive "emotional regulation" of a higher order than what Fe does every time it has a majority)
if you disagree with a beta and engage them in a protracted debate they're liable to think you're stalking them, when from your point of view it may have been a dispassionate discussion over some mainly academic points. the truth is: a part of them would like it more if it were the case that you were taking personal interest in them, despite that it gets outwardly framed as some kind mark against their (in their head only) "adversary's" argument. this is where one starts to realize how pathetic betas can be, and that interacting with them in general is mostly a waste of time (except to engage them in their wheelhouse--social relations), because for them its never really about the truth--its about their personal relationship to you and how consequently that might effect their relationships with others. the "truth", whatever that may be, is just incidental to that, inherently nihilistic and beta, worldview along with whatever present circumstances they currently find themselves in--all their arguments being mainly thinly veiled pleas for attention, which is why they're so hyperbolic all the time--begging someone to (personally speaking, in the case of ILI, which seeks to equalize) "correct" (or, in the case of others, respond in general, i.e.: interact with) them
even this will likely be interpreted by beta as a call for attention because it seems like i'm taking interest in them, when its really an alpha-gamma discussion and I really don't want any beta input; besides, any of their objections will be attacks on the already established phenomena in play and I don't really want to go into a metaphysical debate on reality with betas, since that's always been their one trick pony
Last edited by Bertrand; 02-25-2017 at 01:14 AM.
As you mentioned, delta mildness actually fires me up sometimes. Come on, get passionate! Get loud! CAN Y'ALL JUST START YELLING OR SOMETHING SO THAT I GET A SENSE OF PERSONALITY? I FEEL SAD AND LONELY. From a Beta perspective it feels suffocating like all of the air of the room has been sucked out. Then you get me getting all awkward except you're fine in the blankness and I look super desperate. Just spool out some line, I'll swim to the bait. Tell me what you're thinking, what you're feeling. The Fi atmosphere does genuinely feel just as controlling as the Fe feels to you.
(I realize that you were looking to criticize the Beta mindset here, but I actually agree with some of your criticism)
I'm actually very conciliatory but I want my opponent to dig in and give me some of the opposing view. I don't want to feel set in my ways and I want you to match my level of argumentation so that we can hash it out. I'll go really in deep arguing my point and seem very involved in it and then afterwards smile, lean back and say "Thanks, that was fun! I like some of the points you made! And after all it didn't really matter much..." (I suspect this comes across as vaguely unsettling to Fi valuers). I back way up if I get a whiff of a sense that the other person is actually offended.
It also depends upon the subject. I'll behave much more opinionated about something abstract like my enjoyment of a book because it's fun to get intense, but with stuff that people are more sensitive about like politics, I'm very careful and spend a lot of time finding points of agreement between me and the other person. "I totally get what you mean about X, I agree, but...". Constant devil's advocate here. I like to fiddle with my creative Fe and play the part of the agreeable insider even if I fundamentally disagree with the other person because it helps them open up. And if they open up, they're likely to be a lot more honest and detailed about how they feel and maybe even a bit more conciliatory themselves, so I can slowly introduce my perspective and we can engage on that and I can learn something about how they think. I like to playfight, not actually hurt feelings.
Basically, conversation is performance for Betas. It's understood that you might play up your reaction to something and it's all in good fun as long as you communicate what you're really thinking too. I think Betas (especially beta NFs) are trying to reach out by digging their heels in the ground. They expect the other person to react to that and provide their own momentum so that you get two big boulders flying out at each other. When people just sort of... see that I'm mounting an argument and concede, it's really awkward. Remember, it's playfighting. The dogmatism, the intensity, etc. It's all play for us. I mean, on some level, it's genuine. It's shadowpuppetry. There's something genuine behind the show (I tend to get frustrated with Alphas when I assume there's a message to the games and there is none, think that's related to the Ne/Ni divide), but the presentation is playful. Augmented reality.
I think it might help your interactions with Betas if you verbally point out that they're being too hardcore for you (I realize you're an Alpha and not Delta but it could probably apply to anyone interacting with Betas). They might not have intended to come off as harsh as they did and, unless they're jerks, will probably explain to you what they were actually trying to say. When you think the Beta is being mean, we might simultaneously worry that we were boring or upset you in some way. Clearing up the cause helps a lot. If I know my Beta approach doesn't work with you, I'll redirect my conversational style to be more earnest and direct. I might have less fun but I'd rather have that than make someone feel hated.
Last edited by Stellafera; 02-25-2017 at 02:57 AM.
stahp you're making me think all betas might not be bad
although I will say that inasmuch is Fi is ok being left alone and Fe has to mess with other people its crossing a line, and its a false equivalence to say the two feel the same to eachother, because one is not doing anything and the other is actively interfering with others. in those cases, I wish beta would just tap into some of that high powered yet oft ignored Fi and chill
Fe-Se mode enabled
you staph it you're a Fi-valuing type and you aren't acting like a hardass pussy
the only people left to make fun of are alphas and they don't understand insults
Fe-Se mode disabled
Rebooting...
Fi mode enabled
I'm glad something about that spoke to you! I was kind of worried that it'd come across as too positive on the Beta PoV/disrespectful of the Fi criticism angle and I'm happy to see that it didn't.
Hm, that makes sense. I think from the Fe perspective, all social interaction involves you imposing your "vibe" on someone else, and Fi feels like the "vibe of no vibe". It's a freedom of expression issue for Fe and it's a freedom of not having to express issue for Fi. Fi wants an environment where it doesn't have to be anything it's not and Fe wants an environment where it's allowed to try on different personas and play at being something else.although I will say that inasmuch is Fi is ok being left alone and Fe has to mess with other people its crossing a line, and its a false equivalence to say the two feel the same to eachother, because one is not doing anything and the other is actively interfering with others. in those cases, I wish beta would just tap into some of that high powered yet oft ignored Fi and chill
Social relations are part of truth.
Are you a fan of star trek?
Btw you vibe like my grandma.
do it in front of a mirror please
Bertrand... get over yourself. You've been trying to get a rise out of me ever since, and I've mostly just ignored it and held it in, even though you were clearly being an asshole about it. That's why we had that big conflict, because I was so pissed about it. We can just call it a truce, and never bother each other again. The choice is yours.
Hate is a sentiment that has an outward target, it goes from you to them. Fear is the initial mechanism, from them to you, it's intrusive. So it's only natural that hate is the retaliation reaction, trying to intrude back. The latter includes all of the actions I've listed but it can go beyond that, hate has as many forms as fear because it depends on the hater's motivation and the hatee's.
The people you hate the most... are probably not in your quadra.
Simply because there is some kind of inherent understanding and common ground with people of your own quadra.
Even though you may sort of dislike them for non-socionics reasons, you can still get where they are coming from.
Having said that, the people you hate the most could be of any type.
And I've found that Fi leads in particular are the most likely type to hate someone from their own Quadra for personal Fi-related reasons.
I fear good things sometimes though--things I don't hate. I also feel like I hate some things I don't fear. I feel like the common cause to both these things is simple negative affect-- one motivating us in terms of alerting us to danger (fear) the other to act on it (hate). But I feel like hate presumes a moral judgement on top of fear that is "I am afraid of this and I shouldn't have to be"; which "fear = hate" reduces out of the equation, but which I think is a legitimate category. I feel like moral judgements are not just expressions of fear, but statements about certain phenomena that cause fear that have a legitimate basis (albeit not for everyone--some people reflexively hate whatever causes them fear), but I would say, at least in my case, I can separate fear from hate, especially in the case of fearing things I know to be good for me (this is the basis of courage--especially moral courage). In that way I feel like you can legitimately hate things (in the case of fear-producing things that also really are bad) and illegitimately hate things--i.e. moral cowardice--this takes the form of moralizing vice: i.e.: an anti war stance (hatred of war) for reasons of personal cowardice not actual principle
in other words, I feel like one must have an adversarial position toward ones own natural tendencies and the failure to do so constitutes both cowardice and a 1:1 correlation between fear and hate, but that is not the rule of the universe only the rule for weak people
in other words, cowardice is the attitude that one is justified in hating whatever causes them fear and this is what results in all sorts of moral failures (up to and including counter phobic violence)
I feel like it is a moral triumph above the norm to be able to separate hate and fear, and not just in the case of not-hating everything that causes fear, but also in learning to hate things that are seemingly innocuous, even comfortable, or security-producing (this is something I think Fe-Si types especially tend to struggle with--deathly obese families are a product of this failure, etc)
Last edited by Bertrand; 02-26-2017 at 01:00 AM.
So I suppose my question is, must an Fe type seek out emotional involvement in others, is this more enneagram related, or is this an integral component of Fe? Would they be okay in emotionally neutral atmospheres, and 'let it be' without an impulse to change it? If it isnt, what is this desire to change temperature of the room, and why does Fe feel a need for emotions to be active in the atmosphere? It cant just be a simple case for fun, from what I have gathered the reason should be much deeper than that.
Last edited by Slade; 03-06-2017 at 03:23 AM.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
Yes, that's how i see it as well.
Pretty much, I can't think of any real life SLE, IEI or LSI I've ever hated.
THIS.
Oh this again
Yes, yes, yes
Now it makes total sense why we'll never agree on this issueCute I hope this helps: My statement is a
I definitely see how hate can and in many cases do, come from fear. But it's far from being the only source, hence why the "always" you use on your motto triggered me.
it's kind of two sides of the same coin. ime Fe-valuers are most comfortable in emotionally neutral atmospheres if the other people are Fe-valuers as well. so, it needs activity, but more in the sense of intentionality than literal, overt expression.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Keep in mind that I'm still learning a lot about socionics. It's easy for me to understand Fe as it works in myself, but hard for me to see how it works for Fe leads or with types on the Ne/Si axis.
At first blush, I'd define emotional awareness as more of a Fi thing. Understanding what people's feelings are and being able to articulate that.
I dunno, I think I see some of that tendency in myself with Ti in the sloppy hidden agenda position. "So the math works like this (Te)? But that doesn't feel logical to me! It has to make sense to me for it to be right...".An example of this would be saying you are feeling something is wrong, and not bothering to or listening to the logic of it, but feeling strongly that its wrong, so that is enough reason to make it wrong
That does seem to be a thing with Fi, yeah.Fi has its 'own' logic to it, but its not logic in the sense of coherency of thought structure, it's more emotional coherency
I can't answer for others, but for me, it's because it helps me communicate myThat would seemingly slant towards Fe, but this whole performance bit I don't understand and practically speaking, I'm unaware as to how relations would breakdown for me in this sense. I can project an image of someone who is Fe PoLR or devaluing into your example and see how that attitude would clash with them and cause friction but struggle to find examples of that in myself. So I suppose my question is, must an Fe type seek out emotional involvement in others, is this more enneagram related, or is this an integral component of Fe? Would they be okay in emotionally neutral atmospheres, and 'let it be' without an impulse to change it? If it isnt, what is this desire to change temperature of the room, and why does Fe feel a need for emotions to be active in the atmosphere? It cant just be a simple case for fun, from what I have gathered the reason should be much deeper than that.. I have to create a simulacrum of the mindset shaping my Ni in order for other people to get the same impression I did. And I want the same from other people so that they can put their own messaging out that I can interpret as well. Emotionally neutral atmospheres make me feel like I'm not understanding the full picture. I think ILIs use their
Think that's why I use so many similes when I talk. I'm trying to draw comparisons of what I have in my head to something that other people can understand. I want people to understand me and I want to understand other people, and Fe helps me get there. So yeah, let's hang up the mistletoe and string the lights on a pine tree so that the family feels like it's Christmastime, so we can share a holiday together. Let's make everything pink and stuff on Valentine Day so that we all think a little bit about love. Watch the ball drop in Time's Square to ring in the excitement of a new year, play around with costumes on Halloween, feel a little guilty about our environmental impact on Earth Day. Whatever does the trick.
I'd be bothered by the beta-delta debate too. That kind of interaction would be more common between Beta STs and Delta NFs and it's also a function of emotional maturity. Understanding that different people have different conversational needs, etc.I'm more concerned with Fe in the case of psychological damage - two betas arguing with each other wouldn't bother me, but a beta and a delta would (in the image Im projecting the delta would be damaged by that atmosphere, its more than just 'its not harmonious', but the fact that said person is being damaged in a way that will last past that interaction sicne a delta wouldnt be able to shrug off name calling, etc and intensity of heat exchange like a beta - and the beta would be scarred by the judgements of the delta), though I wonder if that has anything to do with Fe at all.
Not sure. I think Fe leads are more in the mindset that it's really good for us to all be on the same page rather than that it is useful. I agree that Fe creative I am inclined to describe the function in explicitly manipulative terms, which is probably not how other people see it.The ethics you are describing sound more manipulative and flexible which would make sense for creative, so I wonder if Fe leading types would also feel the same way...
Can you elaborate what you mean by having more sources, which ones are there?
Off the top of my head: Disgust due to deeply personal values being violated, betrayal of trust, chronicle disrespect, resentment due to unrequired feelings,callousness due to intense envy, disillusionment after a disappointment etc.
Disgust is fear of being infringed on, experiencing betrayal is fear of being left alone, perceiving disrespect is fear of being put down, resentment is fear of not being appropriate, callousness is fear of feeling inferior and disadvantaged, disillusionment - yes, since sadness > fear in that case.
Lol, none of the things you write about emotions like hate and disgust make much sense to me. Not saying they're wrong for you, but that I can't relate at all.
But we've had some of this discussion before. I'm not very interested in hate. As I said in the past, if someone is behaving in ways that lead me toward hate--a waste of my energy and a twisted way of being--I disengage.
Disgust to me is a gut (visceral) reaction that tells me something is wrong, and the wrongness runs the gamut.
All this fear stuff I don't identify with. Of course I feel fear, but I don't see it converting into these other emotions. I do think that one emotion can mask another, but how those layers form is somewhat individual.
ETA: This article discusses brain imaging that shows hate runs on a distinct circuit from fear and anger and actually appears closer to love. The study seems fairly inconclusive except that it shows various emotional states as likely separate things.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Ditto why this thread exists in the first place mwahaha
I feel like this way of thinking falls into the same camp as psychological egoism, which is just because all acts can be interpreted as selfish does not mean that that is actually the case, rather it is symptomatic of an overbroad conception of selfishness. I think your conception of fear is likewise functioning in a similar way--this is a systemic Ti issue, with what you call fear actually being something like "negative affect" in general, and you're working from the ground up with "fear" filling that role. True, it could be the case that you could interpret fear as being at root of all these things, but I think that entails a subtle and overbroad extension of fear in order to make it fill that role. Realize that fear has a specific definition and connotations for most people that differ from the meaning you have assigned it. if all you did was replace "fear" with negative affect I don't think anyone could really disagree with you, and in the sense that I automatically kind of do that in my head in order to better "get" your point I don't really disagree with you either, but you're never going to convince everyone "fear" is at the root of everything because fear has specifically been defined as having a separate and distinct domain from the get-go
the part of fear that makes it also a part of everything else is not the whole measure amounting to "fear" but that negative affect that is common cause to fear and all the subsequent things you link it to
in other words, there is something in fear that is also in everything else you've linked it to, but there's also something more to fear that is not in some of those other things. I think a Te + Si understanding is making a link here of a kind of personal experience where you're feeling it first hand, but its getting hung up on how it is formulating its conclusions abstractly.
its basically nitpicking, from my point of view, but you should know its happening because otherwise you're going to be fruitlessly talking at people, not really with them
to make the comparison to egoism, the idea is every act confers with it some kind of perceived benefit, hence it has a reason for acting in that manner, but the consequence of calling every act inherently selfish explodes the notion of altriusm or selflessness in general, and here in the same way, every emotion we feel on the basis of something bad (potentially) happening has within in it the potential to cause fear or be fearful in some way--that is because the "badness" of the act is "bad" in virtue that we want to avoid or prevent it in some way--inasmuch as that is the case we can say we "fear" it, but fear is a more specific concept that reducing all negative emotion to fear has the consequence of making everyone essentially "living in fear" which is meaningless if that is the case, because people are not simply driven solely by fear and even if that were the case it would mess with our understanding of courage, and a whole host of other values... it would make moral thinking more or less impossible and it basically serves to reduce out all the difficulty in understanding the human condition; in a word its reductionist. it is appealing because it purports to teach us something, but i think it actually would lead to more ignorance in the long run. the idea is we can't just all be acting in fear, because there's a weird kind of determinism to that where we each have our factual circumstances and we're living out our fear in reaction to them, and human conflict is this kind of mechanistic interplay between avoidance of fear and limited resources and the whole thing, in consequence, removes out all the moral complexity to human interactions. you have to in some sense channel negative emotion apart from fear, even towards fear, to move forward sometimes. in other words, this entire discussion requires a negative response to fear, in essence "fear of fear" in your system to produce a system of morality where agency is really possible and if fear of fear is free will or agency or courage or morality the whole thing just devolves into an absurdity
all of these theories that collapse human experience into less sophisticated categories have this problem where they essentially turn on a kind of determinism at their very root. as soon as you make anything fear based or selfishness based or love based exclusively it makes humans into robots in its implications. I know you probably don't believe that, but that is its logical consequence. the only way to really capture humanity as a kind of unified tension of opposites, where fear is held at bay by something else and that things like disgust can arise from, say, courage and rather than fear, because disgust is the gut level response to evil that is not fear based by definition, whereas gut level response to many other threatening things, is fear. but to maintain the tension of opposites we have other words and concepts that cant be reduced out otherwise the system falls apart. just like no one "actually" believes everyone is selfish in their real life, except on the most superficial abstract level, I likewise don't think you don't think morality exists, but for those that perceive the long range implications of what you're saying here, its like you're saying something to that effect. so while it may be ok for you to think in these terms, because you ultimately believe something different than what you're objectively expressing, don't expect the fear theory to really catch on
Last edited by Bertrand; 02-26-2017 at 06:01 PM.
Your point being?
my point is just that fear is not the root of all hate, but I could see how someone might think that
but people are driven by fear, in general, to a far greater extent than they probably realize
lmfao
@Bertrand do you really think you're duals with Chae after this interaction? Your verbosity and high level of abstraction is super unlike SLI... you can change back to ILI imo.
by contrast look at how mclane condensed his conclusions to short info points here in a way that nobody else in this thread did, and how much Chae liked it: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1176461
IEE Te HA isn't interested in thinking about an Ni whirlwhind of info. it just wants to grab the key points and go.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
