Alpha & Gamma Interactions

[Faeruss]

This interaction could be used to perform a case study on communication styles --- truly fascinating. I will let Animal answer the questions about edginess and rowdiness --- though I have similar complaints about aspects of the Ni descriptions.
 
An important observation and distinction to make is that every one can master skills. Se seems to me to do so via the path of obsessions and fascination/interest --- the hunt to which Animal alludes constantly. Je masters skills by providing a framework that makes their success inevitable --- discipline, google calendar, to-do lists, and what not.
 
Finally, I will say, and cf. my thread on Ni and Perspective, there is no a-perspectival view of anything. And this goes for the cognitive functions. In Psychological Types we see an NiFe's perspective on the types, like Animal's quote shows how Ni can see Se as somewhat superficial/overly concerned with "reality".  CT in its current form has the perspective of a TiNe embedded in it, despite criticism and revision and feedback from other members. I have suggested that perhaps the only right approach would be to have each type's description of all the other types/functions. A synthesis might be attempted from there, you might say, and you are right. But someone must attempt such a synthesis. And then the process begins anew, each type having a synthesis of all the previous perspectives, and so on ad infinitum, ever approaching the Truth, but never getting there.

[Juan E. Sandoval]

This interaction could be used to perform a case study on communication styles — truly fascinating.

I'm the guinea pig for once. 🙂
I wonder what others think of my communication style, as perhaps I'm blind to my own effect.
But with @animal 's communication style, I notice that:

• 1) There's the immediate visceral reaction
• 2) Then there's the essentialist complaint

I could be wrong, but that's how it appears to me. The initial visceral reaction seems as a first-pass through the Fi palate, and it can be very haughty and poignant in its sense of repulsion or affinity.
This is what seems jarring to me. It throws me off, almost being hyper-stumilating. My own thoughts follow along the lines of: "wow, you don't need to react so strongly" and also "why aren't you neutral about this."
Where I think I can falter is in not addressing the second point; the essentialist complaint. It seems to me that #1 stems from reaction #2. The essentialist complaint is something like "[ subject/topic ] is not being represented faithfully for what it is." So although the initial repulsion is poignant, there's good reasoning behind it that comes from a measurement of the core properties of a thing. There's a moral violation that is sensed, which is seen by the Gamma as not confined to their subjective preference.
I can be prone to dismiss #2 on the grounds of #1. And also, my (sometimes implicit) desire for properly articulated information makes for a hard request -- because of Fi's "embodied" rather than linguistic moral expression. So to the degree that my Gamma interlocutors (in this case Animal, but it's also been Chilled/etc) don't translate the embodied morality into lingustic articulation, then #1 is taken at face value, rather than #2.

[Animal]

@auburn You are right!  When I was reading Jung's description of Se before, I was laughing at how he said something which I've always said about myself; that I don't operate within the constraints of right or wrong; nor do I even think!  😀
This may sound strange for someone who has studied philosophical systems in depth, graduated from an Ivy League sister school and written long complex fantasy novels. (I've had professional writers and major industry people tell me that it was very ambitious in scope, even for a fantasy book.)  But moment to moment, I channel something rather than think about the components. This is wonderful for writing music, and performing. It's clumsy everywhere else, and this is why I felt so confused about what to do with myself once I lost my voice. Not only couldn't I sing anymore, but also I couldn't perform at all. I am made to channel, to embody and consume and become, not to think.
I have absolutely no disagreement about the visceralness. This is why I am Animal.

More soon.

[Animal]

 

[Faex]

Lol, @auburn, you diagnostician, he he!

I’m the guinea pig for once.
I wonder what others think of my communication style, as perhaps I’m blind to my own effect.
But with @animal ‘s communication style, I notice that:
1) There’s the immediate visceral reaction
2) Then there’s the essentialist complaint
I could be wrong, but that’s how it appears to me. The initial visceral reaction seems as a first-pass through the Fi palate, and it can be very haughty and poignant in its sense of repulsion or affinity.
This is what seems jarring to me. It throws me off, almost being hyper-stumilating. My own thoughts follow along the lines of: “wow, you don’t need to react so strongly” and also “why aren’t you neutral about this.”
Where I think I can falter is in not addressing the second point; the essentialist complaint. It seems to me that #1 stems from reaction #2. The essentialist complaint is something like “[ subject/topic ] is not being represented faithfully for what it is.” So although the initial repulsion is poignant, there’s good reasoning behind it that comes from a measurement of the core properties of a thing. There’s a moral violation that is sensed, which is seen by the Gamma as not confined to their subjective preference.
I can be prone to dismiss #2 on the grounds of #1. And also, my (sometimes implicit) desire for properly articulated information makes for a hard request — because of Fi’s “embodied” rather than linguistic moral expression. So to the degree that my Gamma interlocutors (in this case Animal, but it’s also been Chilled/etc) don’t translate the embodied morality into lingustic articulation, then #1 is taken at face value, rather than #2.

No one else could've done CT but you . . .Jus saying 🙂

[Animal]

First of all,  @auburn, I think our reaction to our recent argument was very telling.  You posted this thread, and at the exact same time - I didn't know you were posting it!! - I posted the "praise Auburn" thread.

Auburn is a Good Sport & a Champ 😀

 
 
 
My reaction to the same argument was basically sentiment and photos.. a visceral show of "positive emotion" toward you.  Your reaction to the same argument was: "Let's examine the principles behind this."
I also do the latter, and I know you do the former. I've seen you show positive emotion, and you've seen me analyze principles. But our initial reaction there, sets the stage for our different communication styles.
I used to make fun of Ne people because of the need to "Talk about the relationship." Many Ne people I've known, use typology, astrology or other methods through which to explore 'what went wrong.' I love those things, don't get me wrong!  And that's why we're here on a typology forum; to examine relationships between all types. I certainly would have started the same thread myself, if you hadn't.
But what makes it interesting is my first reaction vs. yours, and thinking about how this might compound in an offline relationship.  Of course, I do consider you a friend 🙂 but our interactions have been, so far, around a typology forum. It's interesting to imagine how this particular difference could go wrong (or has, in my own history) in a different setting.
In past relationships that were highly personal (best friends, romantic etc)  where it's me and a Ne person, I sometimes felt like things didn't need to be talked about past a certain point. @ivory tends to have the exact same balance here, where we talk only to Point X but then we both get it and that's it. Hard to explain, but I've noticed this as a pattern between Se and Ne, where Ne couples can fight on and on about the relationship until you wonder, what was the original fight actually about??? 😀  It's like the ideas build on each other to another idea and another and another, until two partners are arguing verbally and nobody remembers what it's about anymore.
This does not happen with me and fellow Se's. Ever. There's a more visceral fight, and both partners respond viscerally. Nobody expects anyone to be less angry or to care less, or to 'go easy on them. In the midst of this, there's declaration of emotion.  Of course there can be analysis; I've talked many times about how @Ivory and I use enneagram to resolve our deeper issues in ourselves and the relationship. But the expected tonal highs and lows tend to make more sense to us viscerally. Whereas between me & a Ne partner/friend, we each expected a different tonal development and become thrown off by the other person's tonal choices.
[QUOTE] I wonder what others think of my communication style, as perhaps I’m blind to my own effect.
[/QUOTE]
I actually have no problem with your communication "style."  The thing is, Alphas excel in this area. So the question is: can you trust it?
In your case, yes, I trust it implicitly. I can tell what kind of person you are. (This type of 'character assessment' is something deeper than type.)
However, in general, I have a hard time trusting this refined, perfect communication - and most of the time I am right.
I am not saying this to start a political argument; I am strictly talking about character here. But with Alpha, I can get the 'shiny politician' vibe.  The first time I ever saw Obama, I pointed at him, told my mom "He's a lying scumbag and he's going to win." He was essentially nobody at the time, just sitting with other possible candidates. But I saw that slick perfect presentation and I knew he would always say the right thing, but what's going on behind the scenes is a different story; and nobody would bother to investigate it because he's so "slick" and "likable."
Trump, on the other hand, many people hate him. I know that he 'lies' as in , changes his story, and he says a lot of ugly things that I would never defend.  So I am not saying he's a man of tremendous integrity and I love him. However I find it easier to know who he is, what he'll do next, what's really going on. Everything is right at the surface and this makes me feel more comfortable right away, no matter how obnoxious the person is.
So, what I'm essentially saying, is that your communication, much like Obama's , is quite pristine.  The things that make me trust you are that you do  show more of your own emotion, your own mistakes. That you snap at me when I go too far. That you show some vulnerability, some fear, some anger. That you're human - and willing to own up to it.
The slick, clean perfect communication is absolutely amazing for this project, and I respect it. But it's your humanity that makes you a cut above, in my mind. If you always had the perfect answer at the perfect time and you never reacted, I would probably not be here arguing with you. Slick-talking Alpha Politicians are not my cup of tea.  I need to see your heart and where you stand. Which in your case, I do.
And by the way, the difference is not that Obama is Fe first. I have similar feelings about other TiNe's, NeTi's , etc. throughout my life. The slick smiley perfect communication thing just really irks me. Like where is your soul ? What are you trying to sell to me?
 

But with @animal ‘s communication style, I notice that:
1) There’s the immediate visceral reaction
2) Then there’s the essentialist complaint
I could be wrong, but that’s how it appears to me. The initial visceral reaction seems as a first-pass through the Fi palate, and it can be very haughty and poignant in its sense of repulsion or affinity.

Hehe, this is on point @auburn.  There's a reason I typed as FiSe for years. I don't see myself as particularly prone to 'boredom' or 'open mindedness' or 'seeking stimulation.'  I have a strong palate and I think with my heart. I'm very self-directed and I know what I feel, what I like and don't, and it's very intricate. To you it may seem immediate and "wtf" because a lot is lost in translation, but there's a lot of depth behind these reactions. They build up over many months as a response to a collection of information. The problem is I just don't 'carefully parse it out' on a detached list. But the actual 'logic' behind my reactions runs very deep, which is why the same reactions tend to repeat. They're not out of nowhere or 'emotionally motivated,' it's just that my delivery is emotional and I only feel driven to deliver in the moment when it matters to me.
And this leads to this point.

This is what seems jarring to me. It throws me off, almost being hyper-stumilating. My own thoughts follow along the lines of: “wow, you don’t need to react so strongly” and also “why aren’t you neutral about this.”

I don't see the point in doing anything if it doesn't matter. Life is short and I've fought hard for my life. If something is 'neutral' why do it? I'm here because I care about the system a lot, and because I believe in you.
This is a problem I've run into with T egos, which I've brought up with you before, but now that I think of it, it's mostly Alphas. I get these lectures occasionally from Betas, that I 'care too much' and should be neutral; but they seem to bring it up in moments when I agree with them. 😀 Because they frame it more like, if you care, you're going about it wrong. Your attitude right now will not help the situation.
With Alphas, it can feel like a moral judgment. Like they are looking down at me through their nose because I bleed, I feel, I care. I love the lyrics of this song so much, because he's saying - "I want, I love, I need, I bleed. I lust, I trust, I cheat, I bleed."  "Why don't you come down from your cloud and face reality." He could honestly be singing this to a TiNe 😀

With Alphas, I often feel like ripping off my skin and showing them my bare heart just so they remember to find their own.
This is a historical dynamic for me. If anything I've become more "neutral" about this because I understand typology and I understand why they are "looking down on me" through their ivory tower and telling me to approach matters from a distant angle. But, I have also become increasingly outspoken.
You'd think that after being told so many times to "chill out" my emotions and be more neutral I might actually consider this, but all that it does, is to cement my idea that my role in the world is to keep the fire alive. Everyone else can silence the call of their heart, but I will be an open pipeline to Erosia, a vessel through which passion emerges.
In this Western world of rote memorization and intellectual distance, I bring balance.

Where I think I can falter is in not addressing the second point; the essentialist complaint. It seems to me that #1 stems from reaction #2. The essentialist complaint is something like “[ subject/topic ] is not being represented faithfully for what it is.” So although the initial repulsion is poignant, there’s good reasoning behind it that comes from a measurement of the core properties of a thing. There’s a moral violation that is sensed, which is seen by the Gamma as not confined to their subjective preference.

Yes, I'm glad you get this. Thats what I was trying to say above, that there's a  lot going on behind it, but it's  just the delivery has the visceral stuff up front. It touches me that you can see the wisdom in this. And this is part of why I trust you. Because you don't try to make me turn into another "you" or another Alpha. You actually care to understand where I'm coming from. (I hope I can afford you the same kindness. I am trying, although I know my methods of showing empathy and compassion, as well as understanding and 'I hear you' -  are so different.)

I can be prone to dismiss #2 on the grounds of #1.

Yup, this is where I have gone wrong with Alphas, exactly. The idea that my argument isn't valid simply because there are emotions attached to it.. seems insane to me. But I'm learning over time why; because perhaps you (Alphas? Or you particularly?) achieve more clarity by having emotional distance from the point, so you assume the same for others?

And also, my (sometimes implicit) desire for properly articulated information makes for a hard request — because of Fi’s “embodied” rather than linguistic moral expression. So to the degree that my Gamma interlocutors (in this case Animal, but it’s also been Chilled/etc) don’t translate the embodied morality into lingustic articulation, then #1 is taken at face value, rather than #2.

Yeah exactly. I appreciate your communication style and it is indeed clear. I am not in fact capable of doing that. So the fact that I don't do it, doesn't mean that I don't care or I'm not trying my best. It's just, this is my best. 🙁
And this is why you are the right person to lead this project, not me. The projects I lead are of a completely different nature. Where visceral emotional channeling must be at the forefront. This can be music, performance; but also novel writing. I work with kind of a 'team' - my Alpha NT writes the languages 🙂 but I'm the one with the visceral-emotional connection to the characters, and the realistic coverage of moment-to-moment events. He excels at the 'Silmarillion' style writing, putting the languages and long history into perspective. We work together on world building.
Our main argument has been about emotion and reason, and him seeing things more the way you do. This plays into the magic and the religion in that world so it has been an ongoing argument for 20 years. I can't go into detail til it's published. But it is literally a reiteration of our argument, with consequences in our world which are of epic proportions.

[Juan E. Sandoval]

This really made me smile. 
It made me laugh what you said about the 'slick politician' Alpha shade -- it's true! lol. I've felt that impulse in myself too at times, and I actually dislike it. For the past few days I've had an unposted new thread on a browser tab, where I was gonna share more of 'me', and now I think I will. Because you're right; we are human, and we need not be afraid to show it. I'm not pristine, no real person is, and that's okay.

(I hope I can afford you the same kindness. I am trying, although I know my methods of showing empathy and compassion, as well as understanding and ‘I hear you’ – are so different.)

You've done a lot of work to try to meet in the middle already, and I really appreciate you for it. It's because of moments like this that a deeper understanding and compassion can actually develop. Because as you say, our interaction (Alpha/Gamma) is historical. It's repeating itself right now across families and partners. And the sooner the polarities of the human race can come to understand each other at the micro-level, the sooner we can write about how to honor each other at a macro-level.
 

[Animal]

@Auburn
You made me smile too!!  I love when you share of yourself 🙂  so I will definitely read that thread 🙂  Your poetry and art and personal sharing that I've seen so far has really moved me. And I've even deeply related to some of it, as you know. Both of us addressed emotions through personal 'characters' in such a similar way, and lined them up with functions.  And it's that personal stuff that illuminates commonalities and humanness, despite different cognition & styles.
Perhaps this is a good point for others to take into consideration too. I don't want to impose my own experience and assume it's common to 'the human race,' but it's an interesting place to start with addressing how to bridge gaps between types that talk past each other.
Thank you for your open heartedness <3  It means a lot to me, and may even come to mean a lot to humanity, depending how far this project goes.

[Rua]

I feel I could contribute something poignant here. First I'd like to quote Animal:

In this Western world of rote memorization and intellectual distance, I bring balance.

The world I see myself as a balance against is overly sensationalized, lacking concision and consideration for nuance, too willing to allow emotion to run roughshod and lead us towards suffering in ignorance.
These worlds we are describing are not data driven models originating from a tabula rasa; the world that we perceive ourselves as a counterbalance to is that of our shadow. I think it would be difficult to understate the difficulties that will arise naturally from interactions between individuals with zero cognitive functions in common. Here I think there is an important distinction between process and purpose; both types will have processes whose methods are totally divorced from that of the other, but with exactly the same purpose behind them [Se-Ne = Pe / Ti-Fi = Ji, etc.].
Furthermore, some of Animal's rather striking observations about Se fall into what I would term "animism" in the technical sense of the word, and would provide the natural counterpart to Ni's "shamanism". [Also her name is Animal, I mean c'mon...]
Pe is the spirit animal, Pi is the shaman. Alphas and Gammas see the world through the prism of the shadow, therefore they see the other, likewise for Betas and Deltas. This is what gives me such hope for effective communication between vastly different individuals. Beneath the externalities there is a common, human purpose.

[Faex]

For me, I think I bring balance by rebelling against the values of modern capitalism (the Right) which I see as Te extremism, and many aspects of secular humanism (the Left) which I see as F (both) gone rogue. I'm sure I have beef with Ti too but I haven't discovered it yet. Ne rules! (Lol. JK 🙂  )

[Tea]

The main difference seems to stem from two opposing core epistemological assumptions:
A -  To know a thing, you must step outside of it and observe it
G - To know a thing, you must embody it
 
I feel both impulses inside of me, and I think both are correct. Everyone has a unique kind of wisdom, and I love that this is a community where we honor that.

[Animal]

@Rondo

The world I see myself as a balance against is overly sensationalized, lacking concision and consideration for nuance, too willing to allow emotion to run roughshod and lead us towards suffering in ignorance.

I have heard a similar sentiment coming from my Alpha friend. But may I pose a question?
Ignorance of what?
If we don't allow our emotions room to breathe, won't we remain ignorant of what's inside our own heart?  And, by extension - the human heart in general?
Is there some other method by which you come to appreciate your own passion, or that of others?  I'd love to hear about this, if so 🙂
 

Furthermore, some of Animal’s rather striking observations about Se fall into what I would term “animism” in the technical sense of the word, and would provide the natural counterpart to Ni’s “shamanism”. [Also her name is Animal, I mean c’mon…]

Wow thank you for noticing this! When I first read this I was so moved and delighted that you noticed. 🙂
I was talking with @alerith last night on discord, and said something along these lines too (I had already read your post, but I've made this connection before). I found it so pertinent that I put it on the first page of my website.  Thank you both for the inspiration <3
“I am driven to channel and embody all that I am.  I feel I’m not really alive unless I know what I’m willing to die for, and this is it – to be a vessel through which passion emerges.  By ‘passion,’ I mean the Life Principle.  Fire, Anima, Life, Erosia.  Passion, for me, is a Force of Nature.  It also has a dark side; one’s ‘sins’ – and I don’t run from that.  I aim to lure my demons out of the closet to dance with my angels and merge.  If I suffocate them, isolate them, shun them – they will destroy me, and others. That’s why I am Animal and not Anima.  So Carnal it’s Spiritual.” 
 

Pe is the spirit animal, Pi is the shaman.

I absolutely love this. Several people have told me I'm their 'spirit animal.' Haha. Now I understand why!
I've had people call me a shaman too, because of how I channel and embody my connection to nature and passion, and 'tap into' or 'transmit' a connection to the cosmos. But, I do agree with you, @Auburn and others who have mentioned that "Shaman" is more about a teacher role and observing trends 'from a distance,' which belongs to Pi.  For me it is certainly more about embodiment, and channeling a universal principle by way of embodying my own completely.
To post another quote from my website:
“On a deeper level, I live to expose my true self through my work. I feel I’m a vessel through which songs and stories emerge. The content serves as a mirror. It exposes parts of myself that are buried deep within my subconscious, and which might otherwise remain unnoticed. In sharing my work, I hope to function as a mirror for others. What success means, to me, is knowing that my fight to sing on my album, despite speaking in a whisper, has inspired someone else to create her own artwork. Success is hearing someone quote my lyrics or reference my stories because it expresses something SHE is feeling. I want people to see themselves in my work, rather than merely seeing “me.” I want to touch on something universal. And, through bearing my own soul, I hope to inspire others to express themselves honestly, and to pursue their dreams against all odds.”
I didn't know what Fi meant when I wrote that. It was a quote from my first typing thread on an enneagram forum years ago.  But the idea is that if I look deep enough into myself, as a singular entity, and don't worry about cosmic resonance but focus ONLY on capturing what's inside me in a completely honest way; then I will, in turn, touch on something universal. Jung talks about this with Fi as well:
In order to communicate with others it has to find an external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a satisfying expression, but which must also convey it to one's fellowman in such a way that a parallel process takes place in him. Thanks to the relatively great internal (as well as external) similarity of the human being, this effect can actually be achieved, although a form acceptable to feeling is extremely difficult to find, so long as it is still mainly orientated by the fathomless store of primordial images.
 

Alphas and Gammas see the world through the prism of the shadow, therefore they see the other, likewise for Betas and Deltas. This is what gives me such hope for effective communication between vastly different individuals. Beneath the externalities there is a common, human purpose.

Yes.  This is what motivated me to write such phrases during my LSD trips in college, as "Alone, we are All Øne." That felt so meaningful to me that I hung it up on my mirror to remind myself.


 
This may be more related to enneagram; since fours have the feeling that they're not 'cut from the same cloth as everyone else,' thus being out of touch with "Holy Origin" (shared common origin). So it felt meaningful to me for that reason, but it is also what I'm saying about Fi - that if you go deep enough into your own emotion you find some primordial 'emotion' that belongs to everyone. Of course, as Jung pointed out, this process can also lead to subjectivity, projection and delusion.
Yet no matter how isolated in my separate perspective I may become; I can always remind myself that even the types most different than me are still not that different from me after all.

@teatime

A –  To know a thing, you must step outside of it and observe it
G – To know a thing, you must embody it
I feel both impulses inside of me, and I think both are correct. Everyone has a unique kind of wisdom, and I love that this is a community where we honor that.

Love this distinction. (Some might phrase it as "you must experience it," but this works for me.)
They are definitely both correct. But there's also wisdom in recognizing ones' own strengths and feeling comfortable bringing those to the table, trusting that others might learn from it and it has value in and of itself.  One major benefit of typology is understanding my 'role in the world' through a more objective lens.

[Animal]

Also, @rondo
I want to highlight this quote of yours:

Furthermore, some of Animal’s rather striking observations about Se fall into what I would term “animism” in the technical sense of the word, and would provide the natural counterpart to Ni’s “shamanism”.

This really hits the nail on the head, when it comes to my 'complaints' about the descriptions. It is hard for me to nail down just a few words, whereas I notice that some Alphas - like you and Auburn - just excel at honing in the exact "bottom line" point.
In the Ni descriptions there is "shamanism," but I'm not seeing a clear, explicit discussion of "animism" in the Se descriptions, which makes me feel like one part of the equation is missing.
And this comes back again to the miscommunications which is why I'm posting it in this thread, though I'll address it in the Pe thread too:  which is, I can complain for posts and posts; then an Alpha comes along and says "This is what It Is"  and I'm like..damn, I could have just said that neutrally and objectively, in one post, instead of flooding everyone with 30 posts and drowning everyone in sentiment. 😀
But, then, I suppose the 30 posts were worth it if you got that particular point out of them. If you were able to see it demonstrated, and boil things down that way, then there was a point to it all.
It's just harder for me to communicate this so cleanly. But really you did it perfectly.
I'm going to continue this post in the Pe thread.

[Rua]

@ Animal

I have heard a similar sentiment coming from my Alpha friend. But may I pose a question?
Ignorance of what?
If we don’t allow our emotions room to breathe, won’t we remain ignorant of what’s inside our own heart?  And, by extension – the human heart in general?
Is there some other method by which you come to appreciate your own passion, or that of others?  I’d love to hear about this, if so 🙂

When I imagine a world missing one of the quadras it seems a terrible, gaping hole in the sheer joy and enrichment one can take in experiencing the 'Other'.
However, I cannot answer your question in the way I think you mean it to be answered; I think I could come up with a thousand different rationalizations for why I hold that opinion, but that would not change the reality that ultimately my "attitude toward the world" is a projection. There are 7.7 billion people on the planet, and I am so ignorant of their day to day lives I could not possibly state that any attitude I held towards the world was anything but a dark mirror.
I am enriched just by the observation that there are Gammas like yourself that pour themselves out into the world warts and all, unafraid to wade through blood and guts to find something they can cling to, but I do not think that will ever be me. And that's just fine 🙂

[Animal]

@rondo
Love it.  I agree, it's more than fine. These differences in expression are absolutely beautiful  <3 <3  and it is clear that there's a reason I've been so attracted to Alpha NTs as friends.. over and over and over.
To be clear, I'm not the kind of person that refers to that many people as 'friends' in the long term. It's a fairly short list. And a good portion of this short list are very very likely Alpha NTs. :O
I've worked most closely with them throughout my life, in the arts and in 'deep artistic resonance' -  though it did not cross into the romantic realm. (Unless @devon is an Alpha NT. He might be Delta; but he's the only Ne-heavy that I've ever crossed that line with; and we both realized we are much, much much better off as friends.)
There have been times where there's been a romantic 'draw' to other Alphas, but we both kind of.. 'knew better.'  We knew there was this vast field of difference that we just could not cross with the kind of intuitive familiarity required for us to feel safe loving each other romantically.
But I've spouted out countless songs and stories about these people.
It just absolutely fascinates me.

[asmodeus, king of demons]

to know a thing, you have to figure out how to break it
 
and then how to make it work while it's broken

[Rua]

to know a thing, you have to figure out how to break it
 
and then how to make it work while it’s broken

I don't want to be too dismissive, I will think this over some more. But here's my first impression, and I don't mean to be blunt, but I very much disagree here. Yes that approach is often conducive to further understanding, but when the system you are dealing with is as complex as the human psyche, "breaking" is not a clinically detached state or even feasible at all in a real-world sense [Humpty Dumpty cannot actually be put back together in this scenario, is my intuition.] Nature is not inclined to plan for every eventuality, she fills the world with effective adapters.

[asmodeus, king of demons]

Nature is not inclined to plan for every eventuality, she fills the world with effective adapters.

 
Is figuring out how to use something you've broken anyway not a pretty great example of effectively adapting?
 
I never said anything about putting humpty dumpty together, and i do not understand why the lack of being a "clinically detached state" is significant. As I understand what you mean, at least, I don't think clinical detachment is relevant to what i was saying

[Animal]

Since this thread is about alpha-gamma interactions, I will also be blunt and admit that I have no idea what the previous three posts meant or what the argument is about 😀
(I'm not saying that to start a fight, just thought this was funny and maybe someone else might see the humor in it)

[asmodeus, king of demons]

The main difference seems to stem from two opposing core epistemological assumptions:
A – To know a thing, you must step outside of it and observe it
G – To know a thing, you must embody it

I's just r'spondin' t' this, as 'n alpha, 'n all that.

[Faeruss]

The main difference seems to stem from two opposing core epistemological assumptions:
A – To know a thing, you must step outside of it and observe it
G – To know a thing, you must embody it

@teatime Well put, and I see what you're saying about seeing both impulses in yourself. I think us betas and deltas are mixed types. Betas have detached/look-at-it-from-the-outside judgment and embodied perception, whereas you deltas are flipped, you judge and articulate in an embodied fashion but perceived in a detached manner, at least if my theory is right about where the assumptions are coming from (P vs J). That gammas are the most embodied and alphas the least seems very appropriate at least.

[Tea]

 
> The essentialist complaint is something like “[ subject/topic ] is not being represented faithfully for what it is.”
Accurate. I think Se is highly concerned with faithful representation, while I'm more concerned that the essence make the correct predictions. My idea of essence (Si+Fi) is that it's highly generative in its predictions. So it's important we get the correct core. That gets into where I agree with Animal.
> But there’s also wisdom in recognizing ones’ own strengths and feeling comfortable bringing those to the table, trusting that others might learn from it and it has value in and of itself.  One major benefit of typology is understanding my ‘role in the world’ through a more objective lens.
Absolutely! You know, I regret every instance where I didn't go with my first instinct. I'm glad you keep bringing up points that I kind of gloss over.
The mythology series as it stands is good to me if I view on the level of emergent phenomena, but it doesn't strike the core. It's not a matter of being incorrect, per se. It's still dealing with real patterns. But I prefer a strong core that's generatively robust. I don't see how we can say Pe is anything but the hunter/gatherer instinct, and I think the mythology should reflect that. I think it's (1) biologically correct, and (2) I *feeeeeeels* it. Everything else emerges from that essence. (Note my idea of essence is inextricably tied to the physical, perhaps almost functional. Si rambles. :P).
> An important observation and distinction to make is that every one can master skills. Se seems to me to do so via the path of obsessions and fascination/interest — the hunt to which Animal alludes constantly. Je masters skills by providing a framework that makes their success inevitable — discipline, google calendar, to-do lists, and what not.

@faeruss, this is a critical distinction. It almost seems the whole conductor block reduces the cognitive need for the revisor block. Reducing the demands of the "now." It seems ideal for farming and civilization. I'm not yet civilized. 🙂 It fits nicely with one of the ADHD paradigms from the nineties that basically people with ADHD were essential hunter/gatherers. (Also, yes, you understood what I meant re: P and J axes correctly. I think this is true representationally.)
> Trump, on the other hand, many people hate him. I know that he ‘lies’ as in , changes his story, and he says a lot of ugly things that I would never defend.  So I am not saying he’s a man of tremendous integrity and I love him. However I find it easier to know who he is, what he’ll do next, what’s really going on.

@animal, I feel similarly. FiTe people are shittier liars, so they're easier to trust 🙂
> to know a thing, you have to figure out how to break it
I think you're correct in evaluating your style @puffs. It was interesting for me to chew on. I can see it.
Finally, what about Fe being tied primarily to shepherding? Jelle is insistent that all Fe is directive Fe, and this satisfies that. (Fi is just more selective about whom it will be shepherded by.)

[Rua]

I don’t want to be too dismissive, I will think this over some more. But here’s my first impression, and I don’t mean to be blunt, but I very much disagree here. Yes that approach is often conducive to further understanding, but when the system you are dealing with is as complex as the human psyche, “breaking” is not a clinically detached state or even feasible at all in a real-world sense [Humpty Dumpty cannot actually be put back together in this scenario, is my intuition.] Nature is not inclined to plan for every eventuality, she fills the world with effective adapters.

These are what my thoughts look like when I don't take the time to edit them and pick it over for clarity; It's certainly gotten me into trouble before because they are very impressionistic and tied to the specific patterns of my life. They are easy to misunderstand and I don't do myself any favors by not explaining them or by disagreeing through impressionistic convictions.
So, what I specifically meant was this: The primary thought experiment I posed to myself in response to: "to know a thing, you have to figure out how to break it/ and then how to make it work while it’s broken", was to further explore the idea of a world in which one quadrant is simply missing. That was how I specifically conceptualized the idea of breaking this "thing" that is CT. Imagining the current landscape minus one quadra is conceivable to me. In my imaginings this new world was a more imbalanced, conflicted place, and in that sense I could start to understand just how necessary the balance of the system is. On an individual scale, if I imagine someone missing even one function I cannot conceive that their psychology would be anything but "dysfunctional" in a major, potentially life-threatening way.
Imagining a world in which one function pair is missing is very difficult to wrap my head around, but I can accomplish it. Same with two missing function pairs [A world of only one quadra]. However, if you were to remove three function pairs the system is reduced to ashes. This "world of only one quadra" is a very bizarre thing to contemplate, but I will try to work on that. I believe Auburn has made some tentative remarks that one or another function pair likely evolved before first. This is a very intriguing thought but it seems to me that we are in need of a lot of data here that we don't yet possess before we could really dive into that question.
To use an analogy to try and illustrate my point: For most of human history if you removed someone's heart they were irreparably "broken", dead; there was no way to make them "work" again. Now we have total artificial hearts that can allow you to live for years with a replacement heart when your own organic heart has been removed, the "broken" thing can only be replaced to make it "work", the body cannot function without a heart.
What is the mind/ brain corollary to the Total Artificial Heart? It seems to me the technology that would be needed to perform a similar operation [replacing an essential section of the brain/ cognitive function] is so far into the future it is difficult for me to fathom, but it is fascinating to think about.
It was a very interesting thought experiment to try and work through, and I would love to hear @puffs your feedback on this.
 
 

[asmodeus, king of demons]

To use an analogy to try and illustrate my point: For most of human history if you removed someone’s heart they were irreparably “broken”, dead; there was no way to make them “work” again. Now we have total artificial hearts that can allow you to live for years with a replacement heart when your own organic heart has been removed, the “broken” thing can only be replaced to make it “work”, the body cannot function without a heart.

If you've broken something beyond use, that's still learning about it and knowing it. Now you know how far is too far. That's great! Maybe don't pull out a human's heart if you want them to stay workable. It's a good thing we've got a lot of spares.
I'm not saying it's the ideal system. Obviously, if you break something too bad it's kaput as fuck. That was just my first thought as to Tea's comment on Alpha/Gamma knowin' stuff approaches. My approach is find the moving bits, figure out what breaks and where the stressors are when I move the bits, trace back the causality of the stressors to figure out how to optimize use.
I used to fix machinery for a living, though, and I'm a fan of diy crafts/repair projects so it's highly possible my brain is just stuck in "everything's already broken and I gotta figure out how to fuckin' deal with all this now" mode.
 
Also, I don't think that imagining a world where one quadra is missing would break CT. That'd break the world, more than CT, since you're just imagining a different world where CT remains the same but has now been forced to conclude there are three quadras (tridra?). I think that's kind of an issue of faulty premise.
Breaking CT, to me, I think would feel more like an exacerbation of the contradictions and inaccuracies of the system and a more constant reminder that each and every one of them are there until the whole system kinda collapses into a mush of absurdity that doesn't really explain anyone's psyches or -- at best -- only does so through a rather arbitrary delineation very similar to mbti and other typology models.
 
For example -- to try and break the theoretical side of CT -- some issues off the top of my head are:
The Ti myth profile last i read was overwhelmingly P-heavy with its verbiage, Te conductors often seem to relate to being Fe/Ti, even when they read Auburn's descriptions, Ne users from my experience seem far more drawn to "void" mythology than Ti users, which brings up the issue that maybe some concepts and experiences are not necessarily type/function specific at all but are rather emergent properties of more universal human experiences and features and if you add all that up -- as well as other issues -- then you get a system called CT that looks a lot like CT but in the end results in a system where everyone feels like they could be everyone and hey, maybe that's because the white noise that is humanity is just too much to systematize into exclusionary categories and we'd be better off making a point to always and in all cases just approach each person we meet as a new and unique individual.
 
All that said, though, CT isn't really founded on the theory side so much as the practical side (i.e. facial and body language unconsciously communicate aspects of our personality to others). These notions of quadras and functions are themselves, i think, emergent properties and the base of CT is the link between physical action and the unconscious motivators behind them.
Now how do we break that?
Well let's look at what we've got so far.
We've got a lot of people (7 something billion last i checked) and all of them talk and walk and communicate with each other. Great! let's take a closer look at them. It would seem, upon closer inspection, that the ways these people use their bodies to do all this communicating actually cluster into identifiable signals that form patterns! As we collect more data and get a better sense of these signals and patterns, we start to see them grouping into exclusionary families of signals -- four, it would seem (one could also try and break CT by conceiving of/finding a contradictory clustering of these same signals that itself is equally valid as the current CT clusters, since that would imply that the clusterings are somewhat arbitrary). It also seems that any given person will display two of these families in their articulation to the exclusion of signals from the other two.
Sweet, this is great, we've got so much information. Now, let's try and break what we've got.
Signal mixing is my first thought. Can we find someone who displays a not-insignificant amount of signals from two clusters which should be mutually exclusive (with the caveat that these contradictory signals are natural and not learned/forced behaviors)? If we do, what would that mean? Are our clusters wrong? Are they right, but not as exclusive as we thought? Is CT bullshit? Regardless of whatever the answer is, the fact that we've found this essentially system-breaking person will shed more light on CT and the associated subject matter.
My second thought is somehow disproving the link between physical signal clustering and unconscious cognitive activity. I dunno how i'd go about doing that off the top of my head, and that seems more like a kaput type of breaking. But it'd probably break CT if that happened, too, and one would learn more by adapting CT and themselves etc to the new, broken state of being.

[Hrafn]

Having written this post, I see that it kind of veers all around this topic in a rambling, zig-zagging way. But whatever, I guess that's just the nature of the beast this time…
I've never related to the stereotype about Alphas being inherently detached, and in fact this characterization has always kind of irked me. First of all, I don’t find it particularly true. I’m squeamish about gruesome/painful medical situations because my mind creates vivid enactments of those sensory experiences. I’ve actually struggled in academic situations where I’m expected to analyze issues that have human consequences from too detached of a place—I’ve never wanted to become a climate scientist or anything like that because I recognize that it’d make me deeply depressed. I often notice that what I hear/read on the news can have big effects on my mood throughout the day. Sometimes I even avoid reading the news because I don’t feel like I can stomach it. But the broader issue I have with the Alpha-detachment stereotype is that it feels like there’s an inherently humanizing language that’s used to describe the Gamma function pairings, while making TiFe & NeSi feel comparatively flaccid & lifeless. It feels to me like it’s saying, “Gammas have an inherently fuller & richer experience of life—they’re more truly living, embodied beings than are Alphas.”
In fact, a lot of the Alphas I know are quite vibrant, spunky, engaged & passionate. There’ve been discussions of shamanism on other threads, and I actually once met a man who was rumoured to be a shaman, who was descended from the last line of shamans in this particular area. He himself gave mixed signals about whether or not he was a full shaman (I knew better than to ask him directly), but at the very least, he was deeply spiritually connected to his shamanic forebearers. I wasn’t familiar with CT at the time, but from what I remember he was pretty definitely Ne-lead, and most likely NeTi I-I- or something like that…he also had a fair amount of Si, as well, which gave him a keen sense of connection to the sense of place, history & genealogy connected with his shamanic lineage.
OK, here’s an example involving a particular shade of Gamma that illustrates the basic issue I have with the Alpha-Gamma stereotypes as discussed in this thread. (As an aside, I recognize that "detachment" can have a variety of meanings, so it's possible I'm simply talking past other people. Also, there are a huge variety of both Alphas and Gammas). This example is negative and just to be clear, my purpose here isn’t hating on Gammas—there are a lot of Gammas I love, and a lot who do not exist in disassociated or compartmentalized vacuums like the ones in these examples. But by the same token, I’d say there are also a lot of Alphas who are not cold, aloof or disengaged like we’re sometimes made out to be. …
I’m picturing “chief executive” or “manager” shade Gammas—people who are ostensibly very pragmatic and engaged with reality on a 1:1 basis. And I admit that by contrast with these folks, I have more of a head-in-the-clouds Alpha disposition--I'm prone to day-dreaming, getting worked up & worried about things that aren't right in front of me. So in that sense I could be called detached.
Yet when I look at some of these more ostensibly down-to-earth Gammas—let's say a Gamma investor who lives a fast-paced lifestyle of stock exchanges—I can’t help but feel like the stock market is not reality in any complete or holistic sense. Yes, the stock market is at the nexus of human activity and civilization, and a Gamma stock trader might be viscerally interconnected with it. Yet what I find frustrating about people like this investor is it often feels like there's an inability to connect with or respond to human experience as a whole, contextualized set of interactions--as an interconnected web whose implications extend far beyond the cost-benefit truth of the immediate situation.
I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself clearly or making sense, but I'll continue with this example:
--the Gamma stock investor is highly attuned to the opportunities of the present moment, so he invests in a weapons company because he has a sense that that will bring the best returns
--the weapons company sells arms to Saudi Arabia, which the Saudis then use to terrorize the civilian population of Yemen.
--The company's stock soars, and the investor is happy
--The investor wants to ensure a political climate that’s favorable to his continued investment, so he becomes involved in the political arena, lobbying the Congress to continue selling arms to the Saudis.
In this example, the investor is viscerally connected with the immediate environment, but detached from the larger context. When such an investor hears of a gruesome school bus-bombing in Yemen, he's unable to form an emotional connection between this event and his own life, or the lives of those close to him. Or at least, the emotional connection isn't strong enough for him to change his behavior patterns.
Now, this example is somewhat limited because it's hypothetical. Such an investor could easily be an Alpha, Beta, or Delta, while people from all the four quadras might also have negative reactions to this behavior, as I do. But this kind of compartmentalization seems quite common among businesspeople and capitalists, among whom Gammas are well represented.
I suppose I could use Donald Trump as a real-world example of this sort of disassociation, since he came up earlier in the thread. Donald Trump isn't "detached" in the classical sense--he gets extremely worked up & vindictive whenever anyone slights him or resists his desire for control. Yet Trump becomes so absorbed in these exchanges that he shows little remorse about any sort of cruel behavior that allows him to get ahead or settle a score. In other words, he acts as if his own life is totally disconnected from those of all those whose lives he's foreclosing. While he may not be “disembodied” from his own existence as an individual being, he seems very “disembodied” from the broader web of life.
I know Trump is a politically-charged example and not everyone here shares my political views...but there are plenty of examples of liberal politicians who I'm pretty sure are also Gammas whom I react negatively to (albeit much less viscerally) for similar reasons. Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton are examples that come to mind. Bill Clinton is a perfect example of a slick, insincere politician who was willing to say whatever it took to get ahead in a given moment.
(For what it’s worth, I also have plenty of my own issues with Obama, so I don’t think this phenomenon of slimy, ruthless politicians is confined to one quadra, by any means).
As I said above, my purpose isn’t to hate on Gammas at all. I’ve known a lot of Gammas who are awesome people that I connect with really well. So here’s a more positive example that nevertheless helps to illustrate my point about Alpha-Gamma generalizations…
This isn’t exactly connected with detachment, but I feel like it connects with some other, related generalizations about the function pairings. I have a close family member who’s a TeNi—probably a TeNi I--I. She’s very F temperament but definitely TeNi. We’re very close, but as you’d expect, she’s very different from me, in the way she thinks and acts. Perhaps she is ethically “embodied,” yet in terms of her overall way of thinking and functioning in the world, I don’t know anyone who is more verbal than her. If she’s navigating from one place to another, she’ll tend to do so on the basis of verbal instructions unless it’s somewhere she knows really well. (She has very poor spatial cognition). She also seems to do everything in a methodical, step-by-step way—if there aren’t step-by-step instructions for how to do something, she’ll make them up herself. By contrast, I actually struggle with following step-by-step instructions—especially if they’re verbal. But I’m quite spatially adept. In a lot of situations I learn by fumbling around till I’m able to get a “feel” for the situation—a general kind of knowledge that I can apply in any number of ways if I find myself in similar situations. I’m not saying that my way of learning is somehow superior—it actually tends to be slower & more clunky, at least initially. All I’m saying is that in many ways, my way of learning is less through syntax and more through direct engagement with the objects around me.
Now, the differences between myself and this family member are not necessarily Alpha-Gamma differences. In many ways these strike me more as P-J differences than as anything else. I’m just bringing up this example to try to deconstruct some of the general sense I’ve been getting from some of the recent discussions about quadras.
And actually, the final thing I’ll say here, about my own experience, is that in my day-to-day interactions, the biggest, most noticeable differences I experience between myself and other people are not Quadra differences, or even EQ differences, but basic P-lead vs. J-lead differences. This is a big generalization to make—and it’s definitely not always true—but as a general rule I feel like I’m much more likely to see eye-to-eye with a P-lead than a J-lead, even if they have quite different function pairings than I do. I generally tend to have a fairly loose, approximate and relational way of functioning that is often at odds with J-leads who are more focused on exactitude.

[Author]

Posts