Alpha & Gamma Interactions

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions Alpha & Gamma Interactions

Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 50 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #10484
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    That's very true, @hrafn. EQ differences are a big factor. Form my POV, adaptive alphas can seem unwilling to get their hands dirty, to stand for something, but that's the same complaint I have any overly passive type, gammas included. So this stereotype isn't true of all alphas. And it's more of a perception than a reality. But I think we have to factor in perception because we will be approached accordingly.
    Fe seems detached to Fi, but it's really just a bit detached from the self as it's poured itself out. So in that sense, it attached, just at a different level.
     

    #10539
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I need to catch up here in more depth but I just had a revelation-
    That I don't have these kind of serious problems with Alphas in person; not on this level. It always happens when I'm trying to communicate online. I have no verbal nuance, and all my subtlety and "meaning" comes through my tone and expression.
    I don't tend to offend people in person unless it was my intent. But online I say something that I meant innocuously or in jest, and then an Alpha reads it and thinks I meant something completely different, which was nothing close to what I thought I had said or had meant, and I'm like ..facepalm, crawling under the bed 🙁

    #10540
    asmodeus, king of demons
    Participant
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    i prefer in person interactions to online regardless of type. tone and body language is important. is why i find ct interesting

    #10546
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    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.

    True ! I have these issues with my best friend. I think she is a Te lead but she does not want to get typed and I won't insist because bringing her here would raise the general woo-woo-ness of the forum and chat, which is already pretty high. 🙂 I think she is TeNi and in a complicated Ni development phase.
    Sometimes I just don't get her focus on everything being organized and making sense. I am more of a live and let live kind of person.
    I think life is just chaotic...or rather moving in waves that follow certain patterns but that are still pretty much beyond our control and you can just do your best to swim with it...you don't need to build a wall to protect you from the waves or to direct them to a particular place, that's too much effort with too little gain.
    But I think they get the gain easier then we do. I think they actually like closure. And we prefer beginnings. The potential.
    And when you get into a deeper conversation, it shows.
    But we can perfectly get along with them if we just accept the differences and try to adapt a bit.

    #10547
    Faex
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    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.”

    Me too, @hrafn! A kindred spirit. 🙂 I quit a job once in my twenties because I feared it'd land me in jail, lol. It had a lot of those "human complications" and required me to make decisions that ignored them and I couldn't! He he. Glad it's not just an Fi thing. I wonder if it's more of an S + F combi? Maybe S + F + Seelieness/Adaptiveness?

    #10552
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    >With Alphas, I often feel like ripping off my skin and showing them my bare heart just so they remember to find their own.
    I've felt this impulse with anyone I perceive as being too detached (any quadra). I relate. But it's also a violation of sorts. I feel both impulses. But I also relate to a lot of what HRAFN said. I deeply internalize things (when I do), and to me, it's a very private experience. And when people want me to put myself on display because of something THEY NEED, it's a big violation. I have had more ... lively... family get angry with me for not showing more displays of emotions, but it's not fair to assume that just because I don't emote openly in the same way that I'm devoid of emotions.
    It's very controlling to tell someone how show emotions. Not that I don't do that myself. My husband is more stoic, but sometimes I'm like "SHOW ME!" It kind of depends on the degree of intimacy. Displays of emotion are required for intimacy, IMO, even if they must be willful (that's the irony: the "raw display of emotions" isn't for some people; it's deliberate). So asking for them prematurely is kind of pushing boundaries and/or asking the person to change their natural way of handling their emotions.
    At the end of the day, it's a bit of a dance. A little bit of pushing the limits, and a little bit of giving people their space and letting them be.  There are totally times when ripping your bleeding heart out and plopping it on the dinner table is called for.  Hoping they have eyes to see. <3 Hello, human heart!

    #10554
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @teatime @hrafn

    I’ve felt this impulse with anyone I perceive as being too detached (any quadra). I relate. But it’s also a violation of sorts. I feel both impulses. But I also relate to a lot of what HRAFN said. I deeply internalize things (when I do), and to me, it’s a very private experience.

    I also internalize things and have a  lot of private stuff going on.  I have no interest in forcing anyone to show emotions they aren't comfortable with.  The reason I said this:

    With Alphas, I often feel like ripping off my skin and showing them my bare heart just so they remember to find their own.

    It has to be taken in context. I was talking about Alphas who tell me that my opinion is automatically wrong if there's emotion attached to it.  The accusation comes from Alpha NT the majority of that time that I hear it.  Basically  my point gets dismissed, no matter how true it may be, because there's emotion in my delivery.
    In that context I mentioned this particular reaction, but why would I go around asking people to show more emotion randomly?  If they're not trying to control the way I express, then I have nothing to say about what they do or don't express.

    #10560
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I'm going to go through the thread and try to answer the good points that were made, but I got really behind so I'm sorry if this is out of order...

     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.

    Love this, @teatime.  I agree, I don't feel that the mythology right now is quite adequately hitting the mark; although I do think Auburn is brilliantly capturing many themes in general, and he's CLOSE. But I've been chafing at that bit that isn't quite hitting the mark, on several threads.  I feel like the core of what Pe is, is being misrepresented in a lot of the literature out there, compared to my real experience of actual people who are Pe and the trends that arise. You really may be onto something here.

    . I’m not yet civilized.

    Amen sister. I refuse to be civilized. @Hrafn touches on many of the reasons why in his post, but I'll get to that in a bit. 😉  I just feel a lot of what goes on in civilization isn't reality, or isn't the core of what really matters.

    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.

    This is part of why I love calling myself Animal. It reminds me not to ignore those instincts; to remember their value, no matter how much pressure there is to abandon them. (Be it from other people, financial, pragmatic etc.)

    @Hrafn

    In fact, a lot of the Alphas I know are quite vibrant, spunky, engaged & passionate.

    This has been my experience too. First of all, I think that so far, people here have under-explored conversation about a few basics such as function blocks.  You, as an SF type, are going to have a direct line to the visceral-emotional experiences,  just as Gamma SF's do.
    That said, 'lively' is not really what's at stake. Alpha NTs can be lively and engaged with life; so can anyone that is relatively healthy.  The question is, what happens when things start to fall apart? Your health gets fucked - what do you do?
    Two Se leads I know are dead in their late 20s & early 30s because they over-engaged with drugs, sex and other indulgences, in order to manage their depression. Whereas the Alphas I know who are very lively when healthy, have retreated alone to their mental world when unhealthy, but at least they survived.
    Of course,  anyone can commit suicide, can lose faith, can gain faith. But when you're ripped down to your lowest point, what is left? There may or may not be trends here that are coupled with type, but I have noticed a trend in my own life of drug addict Se leads dying young and overindulging.

     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.

    Yes, in this thread I was attempting to nail down the differences. When I'm talking to my Alpha NT best friend I relate to him and he relates to me; we disagree equally; we regard each other as absolute equals emotionally, intellectually etc; with different strengths and weaknesses. The thread was about pinpointing trends, not saying that some small vaccuum of people is the only one that exists.

    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.

    Right, this is what I was getting at with "what happens when you're stripped down to your most base state?" Gammas in their base state are over-engaged in some way. (Not necessarily pragmatic though. Have you met a FiSe or NiTe without developed Te? ;D )

    @Thanatesque
    is NiTe and she under-engages with the 'world out there' and retreats, but then her musings are about life and death, and often reference herself directly.  She writes visceral, emotional pieces about her lived experience and her extrapolations thereof  about larger themes.  So even the most asocial, withdrawn Gammas will insert their own feelings, lived experience and personal visceral energy into their musings.
    I'll continue on another response because this is getting too long and it's hard for me visually to manage.

    #10562
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    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.

    This is all Je stuff.  Je is about taking the action you need and  'the end justifies the means' or similar type reasoning. Obama is Alpha FeSi and he also invested in a lot of weapons and so forth which ended up leading to wars and catastrophes.  Je is the function (in any of us) which makes decisions that seem pragmatic in the moment without necessarily checking in with their moral conscience or compass. This has no direct relation to Gamma if you look at the real world and even our recent few presidents. Trump and Obama are equally guilty here.
     

    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.

    Therein lies the difference. Obama says all the right words, but he also demonstrates no remorse about the damage he's done. He just continues lying and lying and lying with a big smile.
    So if you have a narcissistic Je-lead Gamma (Trump) and a narcissistic Je-lead Alpha (Obama) both in a position where difficult decisions will be made that have horrible worldly consequences; you can compare their style:
    Trump just says "I'm a shit head, live with it lol."  Obama says "I'm wonderful." And they both do the same shitty things.  This is why Gammas can sometimes feel that Alphas aren't "embodied" or aren't "owning who they are," and why I extrapolate that Alphas can  feel like the Gammas are ruthless, vulgar and rude.

    #10563
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    >It has to be taken in context. I was talking about Alphas who tell me that my opinion is automatically wrong if there’s emotion attached to it.  The accusation comes from Alpha NT the majority of that time that I hear it.  Basically  my point gets dismissed, no matter how true it may be, because there’s emotion in my delivery.
    > In that context I mentioned this particular reaction, but why would I go around asking people to show more emotion randomly?  If they’re not trying to control the way I express, then I have nothing to say about what they do or don’t express.
    I see. So the primary provocation is that you were first asked to tone it down, to not show emotion? Yeah, I've felt similarly. I'm too quiet, too loud, etc. Too emotional, not emotional enough. :/ But i do feel some of my empassioned displays are to provoke the heart, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, to remind people of their humanity.
    Until this thread, I hadn't given much thought about SF as a thing, and this has been really eye opening. I can see more clearly now where the visceral part of alpha SF comes in. Thank you guys for that.

    #10564
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @hrafn
    I want to point out one other thing just on this thread, which is a small sample set.  My name is "Animal" and Bera's is "Bera." We both made a catchy, easy-to-remember name, with a clear theme, obvious associations and an embodied point to make.
    You are sensor first, followed by feeling - yet your user name is a collection of letters that can't even be pronounced, and I have to look back each time I type in order to remember it. 😛  Puffs and Rondo are both spelled out names, but the meanings are more elusive and don't evoke a 'body.' Puffs comes closest, in that I can actually picture something physical - like puffs of smoke. But that's smoke. Something that your hand goes right through, and that doesn't stay and leave a visceral impression.   The most embodied name among Alphas here is Auburn, which is a color; but not an animal or a visceral being or concept. Other Gamma names on the forum are very "is what it is" and viscerally evocative also. Thanatesque, Arya, etc.
    I don't think this trend is an accident. It just  is what it is. A lot of times I see a certain forum name and I say "I'd bet money that person is a Delta" .. or whatever. And usually if something hits me that hard, like it's just obvious,  I end up being right. As @teatime pointed out, those instincts should not be dismissed; they can often be meaningful.
    But of course, these things come in shades and it's not absolute. There will be exceptions to this and I am not saying it's a rule.  But many Gammas (not all) gravitate to that which well.... has physical and visceral gravity.  I will not speak for Alphas here because I don't know how it works; I'm curious how you'll respond to this and I'm very interested in any disagreements, reactions, thoughts or POV that may occur (from any of you).
    I also find that Ne types can be much more hesitant to say there are trends, and can be very aware of the exceptions. This is not a bad thing!! This part of the conversation needs to be there or else the world will wallow in misconceptions and stereotypes. However, in general, Se types are quicker to say "this is what it is" even if they disagree. They might change their mind about what it 'is' but the initial reaction is 'trend X , trend Y. Look at it. It's right there.'  Gammas are just more likely to state this bluntly than Betas overall, being unaware of how they might be offending someone. Betas see more nuance in delivery due to Fe, and when they offend, they usually intend to. 😀
    Now I want to explore this quote.

    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 am Se and Te conscious both, and I have always avoided all this bullshit as much as possible. The difference is that I don't get too miserable about it, I just do what I have to do (go to the doctor, pay my insurance, do my job, show up on time) and then return to focusing on the things that really matter to me. I don't want to give this bullshit any more attention than it deserves. I have a strong personal sense of purpose, and themes that are not 'universal' and 'eternal' don't really interest me.  I find the modern world very uninteresting, but it is there, so I just take it for what it is, do what I have to do to survive within it, and then assume that my inner world and true passions are basically a castle that I'm protecting by taking the resources I need from the modern world.
    The parts of the world that I love are the eternal, infinite ones: nature, the human heart, animals, colors, motion.  I'm only interested in history or politics insofar as it reveals trends to me that are universal. I  very very much agree with what Auburn said, that the interactions occurring here may be occurring ad nauseum in other places throughout time - and this is how I tend to view 'the patterns behind' my interactions in general.
    So I agree with you in a felt sense, but my reasons for handling the world the way I do, may not be what others think they are. Many Gammas - or people in general, are more focused on 'worldly' themes than me - since I'm an enneagram 4 which has a self-concept of being alien and separate from the rest of the species. But I still think this may be more common to Gammas than it seems; which I'll elaborate on in the next post.
    The things that are real to me, are those themes which infiltrate my internal world (nature, love, universal patterns, etc) - but the stock market and things like that, are just resource-mines to tap into when needed; for the sake of surviving, so that my own projects may thrive.

    #10569
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I've been vocal about the few disagreements that I have with Auburn 's coverage of the theory, but to keep it in perspective, about 90% of what he has written falls into one or all of these categories:

    • A clearer elaboration of trends I had already noticed  before I got here
    • Adds MORE depth to the trends I noticed
    • Introduces angles I had never thought of, but which blow my mind and I agree strongly

    This includes everything from the mythology to his coverage of 'submerged' types and psychology, to his descriptions of actual types.
    My main disagreement is around the linchpin of Pe, which extends to Se; and the idea that "hero" is Fe.  Though I've written 100 posts on these topics, I must remind everyone that it's really only two topics (or three, if you consider Se an offshoot of Pe) - and not 100 topics. 🙂
    And one thing that I agree with Auburn on absolutely, with no qualifiers, is his coverage of Te "castle" to protect Fi's "personal vision."
    His posts are here:

    Fe vs Te+Fi - Self Improvement


    I love these quotes in particular:

    I also wanted to discuss this from the point of view of mythology– wherein Te is a White Knight, and Fi is the Princess. Someone who is Te+Fi conscious is simultaneously their own Knight and their own Princess; one part protecting the other. So there’s a “defender of the precious” dynamic that happens internally.

    and this..

    Te White-Knight-ing vs Fe Saving the People
    Now I have to differentiate white-knight-ing from Fe. The role of the knight is more appropriately Animus. Firstly, he’s usually devoted to one key precious; his beloved. Fe is a servant to the collective, while Te is  more covetous – placing a bounded border around his/her territory. And the land within that territory is beautiful; a lush garden. Te is selective, through Fi.
    This manifests in big and small ways, such as how Te culture in America is individualistic, but also meritocratic – so that each person works to build their own little kingdom. This is elaborate on much more in this older thread.

    This is basically what I'm getting at.  Many Te people are doing what they do so that they can protect their own personal Kingdom. For me, Fi is higher in my hierarchy; so much like my FiSe II-- friend, every decision I make, and every breath I breathe, is for the sake of my personal artistic vision & passion.  However, unlike her, I am able to go out in the world and find pragmatic ways to acquire what I need, so that I can have a peaceful place to work on my passions.  She, on the other hand, is always overwhelmed with loose ends in the real world, like rent she can't afford to pay, papers that need organizing. So her artistic vision gets set aside for months at a time since the real world gets in the way, and she feels more and more stifled.  This is why Fi needs Te.
    But then Alphas from outside, may look at people who are Te-heavy and see a person just acquiring stuff. This may be true for Gamma conductors who are extrovert heavy and aren't Fi conscious, in that they haven't yet discovered the inner compass which tells them what is really important and what isn't, so they're just acquiring resources hoping to share them with a prince or princess who will make it all worthwhile.  However, I have yet to encounter a Te lead who says "This life of acquisition fulfills me in and of itself."  Even Trump boasts that he does it for his family, for America, for whatever. He convinces himself there are meaningful reasons.

    #10573
    Heretic
    Participant
    • Type: FeSi
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    @animal idk if you're aware, Hrafn is an old Norse spelling of Raven. Homeboys got the most body like name of us lol

    #10576
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @animal idk if you’re aware, Hrafn is an old Norse spelling of Raven. Homeboys got the most body like name of us lol


    @bera
    is Romanian and she still used a name that people who speak English can understand. This forum is an English-speaking forum, so if he wanted to get his point across to everyone in a visceral way, he could have called himself Raven.
    This is the kind of twists and turns that can occur between me and Alphas, actually a great example.
    "No, actually, I'm just as embodied as you; you're just too dumb to have followed 20 steps to figure out the meaning of my inferences."
    😀
    I know you didn't say that. You were very lovely and polite. But it's what I feel when I realize that I missed something which might have been obvious if only I had knowledge of X, Y and Z - such as other languages.
    But being a pragmatic and visceral communicator myself, when I was speaking to a Ukranian guy every day, even though his English is great and I don't know Ukranian, I wanted my name to resonate in his gut. So I asked him how to say Animal in Ukranian, and he said "Zvir" - and that is what I called myself on Skype for the duration of our interactions.

    #10580
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Ack, there's so much here I'm a bit overwhelmed and I don't even know where to start!
    For whatever it's worth, my purpose in choosing the name "Hrafn" wasn't "getting my point across to everyone in a visceral way"--the name is just something that has personal significance to me, that's all. I actually have no  idea what names like arya or thanatesque mean (you mentioned them earlier in the thread).
    There are a few points you've made that I do want to address further @animal, but there's a lot of what you've said that I don't disagree with. It sounds more like we've been talking past eachother to a large extent.

    #10584
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    How appropriate that in a conversation about alpha and gamma miscommunication there would be alpha and gamma miscommunication.

    #10585
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

     

    How appropriate that in a conversation about alpha and gamma miscommunication there would be alpha and gamma miscommunication.

    There are a few points you’ve made that I do want to address further @animal, but there’s a lot of what you’ve said that I don’t disagree with. It sounds more like we’ve been talking past eachother to a large extent.

    I'm looking forward to it!  Just to be clear I also agreed with a lot of your posts 🙂 I just addressed the parts that I didn't (since that seemed to be the purpose of the thread, and discussion in general). Thank you for the good faith replies 🙂
     

    #10587
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I also want to emphasize that - I won't speak for other Gammas - but the average Alpha is much better and clearer with words than I am. I don't tend to have this level of miscommunication with Alphas in person.  Or really with anyone.  It is just so much easier to communicate with anyone irl, I agree with @Puffs on that.  But words on their own are hard for me, and my frustration with verbal nuances can also lead my posts to sound angrier and more aggressive than I intended. Which Alphas seem particularly sensitive to, since they excel at navigating these nuances. (Or that's my theory anyway.)
    Verbally I'm a bull in a china shop 🙁

    #10597
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I should warn in advance that this has turned into a seriously tl:dr post, so my apologies.

    @animal
    No worries, I haven’t found your posts particularly angry or aggressive. I actually enjoy Te communication in a lot of ways—I find it refreshingly direct & to the point.
     

    “With Alphas, I often feel like ripping off my skin and showing them my bare heart just so they remember to find their own.”
    It has to be taken in context. I was talking about Alphas who tell me that my opinion is automatically wrong if there’s emotion attached to it.  The accusation comes from Alpha NT the majority of that time that I hear it.  Basically  my point gets dismissed, no matter how true it may be, because there’s emotion in my delivery.
    In that context I mentioned this particular reaction, but why would I go around asking people to show more emotion randomly?  If they’re not trying to control the way I express, then I have nothing to say about what they do or don’t express.

     
    I get this now, thank you for clarifying…maybe I took it too personally and too, umm, viscerally when I first read it. To be honest, I think a lot of what I was reacting against was more about the general way some of the functions are described & defined. I’ll explain myself a bit more below.
     

    This has been my experience too. First of all, I think that so far, people here have under-explored conversation about a few basics such as function blocks.  You, as an SF type, are going to have a direct line to the visceral-emotional experiences,  just as Gamma SF’s do.

    I agree that the function blocks should be explored more...I've always had a general Pi-ish sense that most kinds of opposites tend to have uncanny similarities, like mirror-images of each other. The function blocks may help to bridge this gap.

    That said, ‘lively’ is not really what’s at stake. Alpha NTs can be lively and engaged with life; so can anyone that is relatively healthy.  The question is, what happens when things start to fall apart? Your health gets fucked – what do you do?
    Two Se leads I know are dead in their late 20s & early 30s because they over-engaged with drugs, sex and other indulgences, in order to manage their depression. Whereas the Alphas I know who are very lively when healthy, have retreated alone to their mental world when unhealthy, but at least they survived.
    Of course,  anyone can commit suicide, can lose faith, can gain faith. But when you’re ripped down to your lowest point, what is left? There may or may not be trends here that are coupled with type, but I have noticed a trend in my own life of drug addict Se leads dying young and overindulging.

    --
     

    “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.”
    Right, this is what I was getting at with “what happens when you’re stripped down to your most base state?” Gammas in their base state are over-engaged in some way. (Not necessarily pragmatic though. Have you met a FiSe or NiTe without developed Te? ;D )

     
    OK, I think this exchange really gets at the heart of the bigger issue I have...or at least it's a good starting point. It makes me think of an Islamic Hadith, “You consider yourself a small body; Yet encapsulated within you is the entire universe!”
    Yes, it’s definitely true that I’m prone to getting “lost in my head.” But where I have trouble relating to CT’s descriptions is that for me, getting “lost in my head” doesn’t usually mean disengagement from my own sense of physical being. By their nature, thoughts are intertwined with emotions, physical sensations, and often reflect bodily concern about the outside world (even if I’m disengaged from it at the time). Yes, having my head in the clouds means zoning out to where the surrounding world becomes more fuzzy & dimly-registering. But ironically, when I’m in this kind of state, I can be quite engaged with my internal sense of emotional/somatic being. I don’t get preoccupied with things if I’m not emotionally invested in their outcomes.
    This brings me to your comments about Se-leads and self-destruction through drugs & other indulgences. (I know you were talking particularly about NT Alphas here, but bear with me—I have a broader point with this). I’ve had bouts of depression off & on over the years, some of them pretty acute. I’ve never had the same experience twice with depression, but for me, it often involves getting sucked up inside myself and having trouble interacting with the outside world. And, I’ve had a history of turning to drugs, alcohol and other self-destructive behavior to try to manage it. There was one awful winter a number of years ago where I was rampantly abusing valium—up to ten 10-mg pills at a time—and often in conjunction with alcohol and sometimes also with weed, tobacco, cocaine, morphine, Oxy, Adderall and other shit. In other words, I was self-destructive and also a bit of a fucking idiot who’s lucky to still be alive. I’ve also had periods of emotional turmoil where I’ve engaged in other reckless and self-destructive behaviors.
    Now a lot of this was opportunistic, and reflected the fact that I had friends at that age who had those drugs--I never sought out suppliers. And there've been other times where I've tried drugs out of a genuine desire for sensory exploration. But I’ve also had a longer-term unhealthy relationship with alcohol that I’ve only really learned to effectively manage during the past few years. Now, my point here is that much of the attraction of downers like valium and booze is that they temporarily smooth out all the jagged somatic & emotional energy that gets pent up inside my body. I can’t merely “retreat alone to my mental world” in order to survive (like you said of your NT Alpha friends) because my mental world is really at the nexus of this conflict. I’ve never found one, consistent way to bring an end to depression, but the end of such periods is usually marked by decreased self-absorption and increased engagement with external reality.
    To that end, I’m not even exactly sure what it means to “detach” from an emotion, at least if it’s already there. I could ignore an emotion, but without some sort of change, the emotional energy would still be there inside my body. As far as I’ve been able tell, emotional energy is just like any other kind of energy. It doesn’t simply go away on its own, but has to be released somehow.
    I also know NeTi’s and other Alphas who’ve gone through some of the same kinds of issues I've described. I have one NeTi I--I friend, a bureaucrat/political activist who struggles with her job for various reasons, one of which is that she’s not good at keeping professional composure—she gets worked up & impassioned about things.  (She seems like a cognitive extrovert to me, but I admit it’s possible she’s an SiFe).
    OK, enough about all this drugs & that shit, there was some other stuff I was going to say. Even though I was originally reacting to earlier posts on this thread, I think one of the underlying issues comes down to how the functions are described & defined. Reading the descriptions, Se, Ni & Fi come across like the “true” S, N & F functions, while Si, Ne & Fe come across as weak spinoffs. I’ll take up some of the specific issues I have with these portrayals further on.
    Auburn has pointed out how MBTI people overidentify with the INxx types, partly because these are generally given more desirable attributes than are any of the other types. Yet I feel like there’s been a related effect in the CT community. The difference is that people don’t choose their types in CT. But they do have various ways of indicating which of their own functions they identify most with. I can’t prove this--it’s just an impression—but the clear sense I have is that Fi is the most popular function followed by Se & Ni. In other words, Gammas & Deltas are most likely to identify with Fi; Betas & Gammas with Se & Ni. I suspect this is because these three functions (especially Fi) are given the most vivid, lifelike, sympathetic, magical & mystical attributes. By contrast, Si seems about as exciting as chopped liver—it’s portrayed as dusty, discombobulated collections of filing cabinets & museum artifacts. Yes, I realize there are counterexamples of users who proudly identify with Ti, Ne, Si, etc., but I definitely see an enthusiasm gap. And who wouldn’t prefer to be “ethically embodied” rather than “semantically ethical”?
    Now, Auburn has said before that he’s concerned, first and foremost, with portraying the truth, regardless of whether that truth ruffles feathers or puts everyone on an equal footing. I know this seems like an impeccable view, but I actually have a few issues with it. For starters, human knowledge is not generated in a cultural vacuum and--despite all the mythology--human sciences are not free of their cultural contexts and the biases that go along with those. When sciences have led to conclusions that seem ethically questionable, I would say that’s a good reason to reevaluate them. A lot of scientific conclusions from the past with unethical implications (e.g. eugenics) have eventually been supplanted. I'm not equating CT with eugenics, and I don't even necessarily see any major ethical issues with the theory itself (although its applications & implications very likely may have). Yet as an Fe user, and therefore concerned with social balance, the issue I do see is that not all the functions seem completely balanced against each other. Some seem inherently more alive than others.
    I wonder if part of the issue is that the descriptions/functions are written by a TiNe—someone with direct, but uneven access to all the Alpha functions. In a sense Ti, Ne, Si & Fe descriptions all seem to have a vaguely Ti-ish feel to them. But I also wanted to say that as a conscious Ti user myself, I simply don’t buy into Ti being perfectly dispassionate. Maybe dispassion—not void—is the actual Ti myth. (As Mr. Spock’s efforts to embody pure emotionlessness sort of gets at). If I’m being honest with myself, as a Ti user, my thoughts & actions all have emotional agendas behind them. If I’m truly dispassionate about something, why would I care about it enough to engage with it? Maybe this is more of a high-F kind of attitude. But where I feel there’s passion in Ti, itself, is that it’s emotionally invested in coming up with pristine, symmetrical resolutions to problems. In order to achieve these, it’s willing to sacrifice emotional investment in the particulars of these solutions. Like Te, Ti loves categorizing things, but unlike Te—which is perfectly content to invent arbitrary categories for the sake of expediency—Ti wants its divisions to be naturalistic, to reflect actual phenomena in the universe. Yet ironically, its desire for clean, naturalistic categories can sometimes make it biased toward inferring undue cleanness from data that actually paint a messy & overlapping picture.
    I’m not trying to dismiss Auburn’s efforts here—I don’t know him in real life but I think he seems like a great guy and is probably a genius—and I don’t actually have any real desire to break CT, either. It’s more like, I’m always wary of being put into boxes that don’t quite fit. So, with the Si profile, for example, I couldn't point to that many parts of it and say “nope! That ain't right!” Yet reading it, it never completely came to life to me, I never had a moment where I felt like “ah-hah! That’s me alright!” Same thing with the other Alpha function profiles, from what I remember. On the other hand, there were various parts of the Ni, Se & Fi profiles where I was like “Whoah! I experience this too!” I know that’s one of the pitfalls Auburn’s talked about with any kind of behavioral profile, and maybe there’s no way to avoid it. But I also think that as CT gets more developed and entrenched, those traits are going to gradually get reified in people's minds. Right now, peoples’ behaviors construct the profile, but if CT becomes big in the future, it will lead to views & expectations of peoples' behavior that are based on how the functions are socially constructed.
    So about Si, many interpretations of typology recognize it as having some kind of a sensory or somatic component. For example, Dario Nardi’s EEG research demonstrated that one of Si’s functions is attending to inner body sensations like hunger, sleepiness, etc. Intuitively, this makes sense as a corollary to Se's sensory attributes, which attend to sensations arising through its direct interaction between the user and external objects. Admittedly, Nardi’s research doesn’t line up perfectly with CT—for one thing, he let all his research participants type themselves as per MBTI protocol (but given Si’s “blah” reputation, I highly doubt that all that many non-Si’s would have mistyped toward Si). As an Si lead, I do relate to being attuned to inner body experiences, and to a relatively greater degree than I relate to being observant of the outside world. Now, maybe Nardi's findings don't apply completely to CT or maybe this isn’t the whole picture. Yet it feels like CT has swerved around imbuing Pi with any kind of sensory perception, for reasons I don’t quite understand. Maybe it's something a priori about how the functions are supposed to work? Maybe it's because this helps to draw a cleaner contrast between NeSi and NiSe? The problem with this is that Pi is pretty plainly engaged with at least one sense—as a perception process, it’s connected with sight and the eyes. Even though it doesn’t literally see objects in the world, it does see subjects in its worldview tapestry. So why would it be engaged with only sight but no other senses? This just doesn’t make sense to me. As I’ve said before, nostalgia is an experience that evokes and is evoked by the senses. Recalling things from the past brings to mind their sensory qualities. I don't think CT has explicitly denied that Si is involved with the senses in this way, but it certainly hasn't affirmed it, either. As I’ve said in other threads, my observation is that engaging my Si brings up certain sensory and emotional experiences. I’m not sure if all Si leads would relate to this, but as we’ve seen with Fi, even Fi leads vary greatly in how they experience Fi’s connection to the emotional register.
    I don’t particularly care all that much who is more sensory than whom, who is more emotional than whom, etc., etc. What I care about is that for all humans (even TiNe's) much of human experience consists of senses and emotions. Yet even in the metabolism discussion, CT only seems to touch on these topics in the most cursory ways. Nowhere in Ne/Si section do I remember it even acknowledging that NeSi users have sensory experiences. Even in the Se/Ni section, the only thing it really says about the senses is that SeNi’s are more somatic than NeSi’s. In other words, none of these descriptions contain any interpretive, qualitative information about what it’s actually like to experience that function. I’m not interested in rankings--who has more of X experience and who has more of Y--nearly as much as I’m interested in what are ranges of the different qualities of people's experiences, and how do these vary according to type. I imagine there are qualitative differences in how NeSi’s and NiSe’s experience sensory perception of the world—I’ve often tried to imagine what it’s like seeing the world through NiSe eyes. It’s not enough to just say “NiSe’s are more sensory”—even if that’s true in a broad, general sense, I imagine that each one has different qualities and that NeSi is more engaged in some ways and in some situations. I imagine, for example, that there are advantages to having a more broadly distributed visual field and actively engaged peripheral vision, as NeSi apparently does. (e.g. I can operate in low-light conditions more effectively than a lot of people I know, and I've wondered if this might relate some quality of Ne-Si).
    Even where CT attempts to present interpretive qualities of “what the experience of such-and-such function is like,” these don’t always seem to get things right or make perfect sense. The most egregious example I’ve seen is the description of the signal Ti-1 “absent tension”:

    “This signal reveals a psychology with a marked inner dispassion and neutrality. Their absent muscular tension runs parallel with a lack of deep emotional affect. They evaluate themselves and their emotions or actions from a detached logical perspective. Although they can express their emotions outwardly with passion and force, these are felt atop of a neutral core/center, rather than emerging directly from their center.”

    What does it even meet to “feel emotions atop a neutral core/center”? This is portending to describe the qualities of an experience common to Ti users, but as a Ti user myself, I cannot place this within my own experience. This seems like a backwards description…as far as I knew, emotions are always something that emerge from your core—where there’s dispassion involved, it’s more like a bird chirping on your shoulder reminding you not to get too carried away by a particular emotion. It's something that feels more exogenous. As we've discussed in anther thread, emotions are more something that comes from my heart & gut area, which is what I'd think of as my "core."
    As a random aside, Iain MacGilchrist has pointed out that humans’ evolution a neurological ability for detachment is actually what has made empathy possible. So I feel like CT could do a lot more work in elucidating some of these nuts & bolts of human experience, and how they relate to the functions.
    I know I’ve gone on forever, and I need to get back to work, but the last thing I wanted to bring up was the Fe description. I definitely have some criticism of it, and maybe I’ll write more about this later. (Again, despite Fe’s status as an ethical function, it gave no description of how, exactly, it connects an Fe user with their emotions). Yet I had a possible insight about this earlier today. I wonder if this profile is a portrayal of what Fe looks like when expressed within a Te-dominated culture, as I would consider my own to be. I don’t find the nagging, puritanical superego attribute of Fe to be an overly healthy one (e.g. the “thou shalt not have too much fun!” part), and I refuse to believe that this is what Fe always has to look like. Yet I can also see this puritanical streak in the culture of one side of my extended family, who are mostly Alphas--originally from a Northern European, Protestant background. And in fact, I can see it in myself, especially if I look back to when I was younger. That said, I find that superego talk and self-shaming are pretty poor motivators, have often gotten me to do the wrong things for the wrong reasons, and can easily lead to pent-up, unreleased emotional energy. I find that a much better motivator is really having a vivid, internalized enactment of the expected consequences of my actions. --Will this action hurt someone else? What will that feel like if it does? If I can imagine a good/bad consequence in vivid detail, that's a much better motivator than shoulds and ought-to's.
    Along these lines, I think the way that I relate most powerfully to Fe is as an interconnected “web of life," like I was describing in my earlier post…as a sense of human ecology--the interconnection of myself, as an embodied human, with everything else around me. In this view, the conceptualization of life is less about individual beings as isolated entities, and more about life as the interconnections between all these beings. Western cultures really seem to emphasize the individual-beings-as-isolated entities concept (probably because they're dominated by Te), and I wonder if that's why Fe comes off as kind of fallow, preachy & disembodied when it's operating within western culture. By contrast, I feel like the web-of-life worldview is quite commonly expressed among Indigenous cultures and others that are not industrialized or driven by written language. For example, anthropologist David Anderson, who lived among the Evenki reindeer herders of Northern Siberia, outlines what he refers to as a “sentient ecology” based on the Evenki idea that "hunters act and move on the tundra in such a way that they are conscious that animals and the tundra itself are reacting to them." In this kind of worldview, the reason for not taking harmful action is because there are always other beings around whom it will hurt, and often who can see this action and communicate about it.
     
    One more thing:
    I’m really not interested in getting into a political debate right now…I don’t feel like that much gets accomplished in a lot of online political discussions other than lots of hate & miscommunication. However, I feel like I have to state, for the record, that I reject the idea of a moral equivalency between Trump & Obama. Yes, I dislike Obama in a lot of ways and find him disingenuous. Yes, he was militaristic, grabbed more power for himself, killed US citizens with drones and did other things I despise. Unfortunately, this has been par for the course with high-level US politicians. I dislike Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, Mitt Romney, etc., for similar reasons, and find them to be pretty morally equivalent to Obama. Unfortunately, the nature of large-scale political systems seems to be that the scum often rises to the top.
    However, Trump seems like an entirely different beast. First, he’s an avowed white supremacist, which there’s no excuse for. Second, he wants power so much that he shows no restraint or forebearance about trying to grab it. I see him as a would-be dictator, and unfortunately, I fully expect him to hold onto power as long as he can, even if that means pulling out stops that previous presidents have left in place. Will he actually concede the next election if he loses?--I guess we'll see. While Trump has (so far) been somewhat restrained by the US system, in terms of his disposition, I find that he has more in common with a Castro, Ceaucescu, Hoenikker or Putin than with a Bush or Obama. He desperately wants power, and has nothing but disdain for those who resist his efforts to grab it.

    #10601
    asmodeus, king of demons
    Participant
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: l---
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I also know NeTi’s and other Alphas who’ve gone through some of the same kinds of issues I’ve described.

    -raises hand-
    man, i'm not even halfway through my twenties and shit is starting to get weird

    #10608
    Animal
    Participant
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: lll-
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @hrafn
    I absolutely love your post 🙂
    I will respond when I have a chance. So much substance there! Thank you for sharing your personal struggle - it is actually much easier for me to get to the heart of things when someone tells me their specific personal experience, and I appreciate your open heartedness there. I've been through something similar.
    I'll say now that I wasn't drawing a moral equivalency between Trump & Obama per se. I don't care, actually, who is more moral than the other "on the inside" - but I'm more concerned with who gets certain jobs done. Maybe that's very meritocratic of me :3
    And  - in the context of this conversation - I was more concerned with pointing out the worst potentials that each quadra can show. And who is a better target for pointing out humankind's worst potentials than politicians? 🙂 🙂
    Either way, I'm not going to defend any of the politicians' character, nor try to compare who is worse than who. I was just pointing out how each side can go wrong in different ways, regardless of HOW wrong. Trump is obviously not the average Gamma that you meet on the street, anyway.
    I will respond to the deeper stuff asap. Thanks again for putting so much soul into this 🙂
     

    #10612
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Thank you @animal! Honestly, I've actually really enjoyed reading your responses, as well, and the vivid, personal detail you've shared.
     
    However, I spent too long writing that last post, and as of now I'm cutting myself off of anymore posting for at least the next several days because I have too much work to do! But I still look forward to reading your reply.

    #10634
    Hrafn
    Participant
    • Type: SiTe
    • Development: l-ll
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I know I said I wasn't gonna post anymore for a while (this is the last one, for real!), but there's just one thing I feel like I should revisit from my endless post yesterday.
    I said something about how Fi, Se & Ni seemed like the most vivid & humanized functions, and that CT participants have been most enthusiastic about these functions. Considering this further, I don't actually feel convinced that Se any more highly valued or fetishized than is Ne. A lot of Ne users seem quite enthusiastic about Ne, and it really does seem to come alive in a lot of ways. I would still stand by my broader point, though.
    Also, even though I've found the portrayal of Si quite lackluster, I actually find it to be a pretty cool function, at least how I experience it and have seen from some other Si leads. I'm happy to be an Si-lead. I just feel like it's still not that well understood & could use some more exploration & insight.
    OK, one more thing:

    Either way, I’m not going to defend any of the politicians’ character, nor try to compare who is worse than who. I was just pointing out how each side can go wrong in different ways, regardless of HOW wrong. Trump is obviously not the average Gamma that you meet on the street, anyway.

    Yes, you're absolutely right here, and I apologize if I implied otherwise. I would never suggest Trump as a baseline for what Gammas are usually like any more than I'd suggest, say, R. Kelly as a baseline for what Alphas are usually like.

    #10735
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @amy - thank you, this is very interesting ! It came to mind since I knew he was an alpha with an unusual name.
    I am so glad another SeFi is here ! <3 Maybe you help Animal and me to draw more light on Se issues.

    @animal
    started some topics...maybe you could help us with your perspective too ! The thing is, we are so few SeFis who engage on the forum, so your opinion is very valuable !

    Pe Descriptions. Should we focus on Hunter-Gatherer, Synchronicity, Channeling?


     

    Self-Improvement & Sense of Purpose. Do you Need it? How does it Work for You?


     

    #10742
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Amy's post got moved to another thread, but I will let the above post unchanged, as I want to keep my invitation to join these threads. 🙂
     

Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 50 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
A forum exploring the connection between Jungian typology and body mannerisms.

Social Media

© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelopegraduation-hatbookearth linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram