# The conflictor relationship



## Tharwen (Mar 20, 2013)

i totally conflict with istj's, i guess it makes sense then that i would be socionics, EIE, mbti enfj.

but i just cant imagine how the ocnflict relationship could play out with other types, because personally i find every other type than istj too innocent for such. (although i see potential for recklessness in majority of the types.)

ill explain my conflicts with istj's:

they often try to manipulate me into doing physical things, and i hate nothing more than physical things.
they use me as a platform to exercise their lying skills for future, selfish use. i dont even want to know what damage they could potentially cause with it.
they try to mold me into a "normal" person, and hey, IM A FOUR! i get my pride from not being normal.
they teach me a "lesson", that i should be strong, that weak people have no place on earth, by raping me.
they hit a plate to my face, because i wasnt sleeping at the correct time. uhh, im not a child, and youre not my father. hell, the only thing i even know about you is your type.
calling me rude just for not giving my seat to you? age doesnt privilige you here.
you say i cant spit to the rubbish can? wow, youre so smart with your paranoid thinking. O_O.

thats all. howbout you?


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)




----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Tharwen said:


> i totally conflict with istj's, i guess it makes sense then that i would be socionics, EIE, mbti enfj.
> 
> but i just cant imagine how the ocnflict relationship could play out with other types, because personally i find every other type than istj too innocent for such. (although i see potential for recklessness in majority of the types.)
> 
> ...



1) Anyone of any type can be a malicious, abusive asshole.
2) You may be ENFJ and EIE, but being either in one system doesn't equal being it in the other. Different type models, different definitions of the 8 cognitive lenses.
3) If you are EIE (FeNi/ENFj), LSI (TiSe/ISTj) is your dual, not your conflictor. Your conflictor would be SLI (SiTe/ISTp). If you are EIE, and that person is LSI, see point #1.
4) Typing yourself sheerly by your interaction with someone else is a generally bad practice. Type interaction makes up only one facet of interrelational problems; you can conflict with anyone of any type, given the right reasons.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

@Kanerou

I'd recommend not putting any time or energy into this guy. He will just irrationally argue with you non-stop and make no sense. He's literally insane and completely delusional. He's even said he's stayed at a mental hospital for some time.


----------



## Tharwen (Mar 20, 2013)

@_Kanerou_

yes, i know. i wrote the J with big j, implying mbti.

and now that i think of the conflict dynamic, it does seem to make sense that estj's overwhlem me by blabbering nonsense. meaning id be an infj, and that the label "conflictor" is very misleading since being overwhelmed by another's blbbering isnt a conlflict at all. ughh, i sometimes just hate theories cause they are misleading, yet i cant live without...



ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> @_Kanerou_
> 
> I'd recommend not putting any time or energy into this guy. He will just irrationally argue with you non-stop and make no sense. He's literally insane and completely delusional. He's even said he's stayed at a mental hospital for some time.


wonderful, thanks for being so helpful by clarifying things! that makes me happy. =)

"I'd recommend not putting any time or energy into this guy. He will just irrationally argue with you non-stop and make no sense."

ive met an unhealthy entp 5w4, she blabbered all nonsense. do you think that could be what im doing wrong? plus combining the fact that sx so's are very opinionated when unhealthy.

usually pople dont tell me what im doing wrong, its very agitating because im so bad at self analysis. (currently)


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Tharwen said:


> @_Kanerou_
> 
> yes, i know. i wrote the J with big j, implying mbti.
> 
> and now that i think of the conflict dynamic, it does seem to make sense that estj's overwhlem me by blabbering nonsense. meaning id be an infj, and that the label "conflictor" is very misleading since being overwhelmed by another's blbbering isnt a conlflict at all. ughh, i sometimes just hate theories cause they are misleading, yet i cant live without...


MBTI ISTJ does not equal SLI; and if you conflict with LSEs(I do too, though I think EIE for me makes sense rather than IEI), its possible you are an IEI but this does not again, equal INFJ in MBTI necessarily. =)


----------



## Tharwen (Mar 20, 2013)

Typhon said:


> MBTI ISTJ does not equal SLI; and if you conflict with LSEs(I do too, though I think EIE for me makes sense rather than IEI), its possible you are an IEI but this does not again, equal INFJ in MBTI necessarily. =)


well i think mbti and socionics are explaining the exact same thing. mbti focuses in stereotyping while socionics has an opposite approach, to understand inside out. what kind of conflicts you have with them?

with istj's i have literal physical conflicts, and estj's, just the blabbering. i actually love estj's very much.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Tharwen said:


> well i think mbti and socionics are explaining the exact same thing. mbti focuses in stereotyping while socionics has an opposite approach, to understand inside out. what kind of conflicts you have with them?
> 
> with istj's i have literal physical conflicts, and estj's, just the blabbering. i actually love estj's very much.


I think they may try to explain the same thing, but the descriptions of the functions are in fact different. Especially sensing vs Se or Si in socionics. Socionics is sensing is about taking up space, whereas MBTI sensing is just about experiencing sensations. 

I conflict with LSEs over stupid shit because we both get our feelings hurt easily.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Tharwen said:


> i totally conflict with istj's, i guess it makes sense then that i would be socionics, EIE, mbti enfj.
> 
> but i just cant imagine how the ocnflict relationship could play out with other types, because personally i find every other type than istj too innocent for such. (although i see potential for recklessness in majority of the types.)
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure those behaviors are not type related but rather sociopathic related. I've met people like that, too, who want to know and understand how to manipulate people and they think your NF is going to help them gain insight into doing that. Again, not sure that's type related. As far as trying to get you to be a "normal" person, in socionics type relations that would make you an introvert and the person who is trying to make you "normal" would be illusionary relations. Still, I know the experience you're talking about and it isn't fun. Try to stay away from sociopathic douche bags as much as possible and stay positive. 



> with istj's i have literal physical conflicts, and estj's, just the blabbering. i actually love estj's very much.




If you love ESTjs very much might I suggest that you are of the delta quadra? Perhaps an INFj? The empath seems to be more fitting in this case given your personal preference for ESTj.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

marzipan01 said:


> If you love ESTjs very much might I suggest that you are of the delta quadra? Perhaps an INFj? The empath seems to be more fitting in this case given your personal preference for ESTj. [/COLOR]


Personal prefernce does equal compatability.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Typhon said:


> Personal prefernce does equal compatability.


Is that sarcasm?


----------



## Tharwen (Mar 20, 2013)

marzipan01 said:


> I'm pretty sure those behaviors are not type related but rather sociopathic related. I've met people like that, too, who want to know and understand how to manipulate people and they think your NF is going to help them gain insight into doing that. Again, not sure that's type related. As far as trying to get you to be a "normal" person, in socionics type relations that would make you an introvert and the person who is trying to make you "normal" would be illusionary relations. Still, I know the experience you're talking about and it isn't fun. Try to stay away from sociopathic douche bags as much as possible and stay positive.
> 
> 
> 
> If you love ESTjs very much might I suggest that you are of the delta quadra? Perhaps an INFj? The empath seems to be more fitting in this case given your personal preference for ESTj. [/COLOR]


i dont think it would really be possible to have anything much between me and an estj, they are so focused on such a realm of information, which when they preach to me, is just utterly useless and theyre only wasting my time. but the emotional connection is very pleasing, provided im feeling emotional to begin with..

ive noted that theres a certain enneagram which when gone wrong, has always had a vengeful undertone to it. depends on the type who and what they are avenging for.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

For anyone reading this to actually predict what will happen between you and your Conflictor:

In Conflict relationships both partners essentially Supervise each other. You nail each other in the PoLR unconsciously and to equal degrees when working together on a task that draws you to take a stance. There is essentially nothing that is mutually valued on an informational level between the two, even if they value the same interests (career, hobbies, etc). 

What is interesting about this is that _when _something such as a hobby is shared, there can still be a good amount of intrigue, because your Conflictor's position is very different than yours. When you discuss your interests it's usually on a superficial level because both partners subconsciously realize the difference - but then they go off and do it in a way that can seem potentially helpful, especially with your Role function. 

As is the case with any intertype relation, psychological distance will amplify or deaden the intensity. If you're psychologically far apart and not interfering in each others' business, things can be neutral or even superficially positive - but as soon as the distance lessens and you work with your Conflictor on issues where an opinion is demanded, you will both notice things about the other person's point of reference that need to be adjusted at the cost of asserting your own, which is unfortunately unintelligible to the other person. _Conflict is essentially pressing the other person to change something that you will always think is important, but that they will never think is important - and you're doing it to *each other*. 
_


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> 4) Typing yourself sheerly by your interaction with someone else is a generally bad practice. Type interaction makes up only one facet of interrelational problems; you can conflict with anyone of any type, given the right reasons.


While there's certainly truth to that, it's probably worth bearing in mind that if an EIE's greatest focus is on Fe and Ni then interpersonal relations are probably the area in which they're best equipped to make judgements about themselves. Any method of self-analysis can be flawed.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Khiro said:


> While there's certainly truth to that, it's probably worth bearing in mind that if an EIE's greatest focus is on Fe and Ni then* interpersonal relations are probably the area in which they're best equipped to make judgements about themselves. *Any method of self-analysis can be flawed.


Why?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> 4) Typing yourself sheerly by your interaction with someone else is a generally bad practice. Type interaction makes up only one facet of interrelational problems; you can conflict with anyone of any type, given the right reasons.


Hmm.

I agree with you that it's not a good idea to encourage others to type by the positivity or negativity of a relationship, especially not right away when you're first learning about the types. 

At the same time, once you've got a good feel for how your own sociotype receives and prioritizes information, I think it's possible to "type" others from keeping track of the way your interactions unfold over a span of time, and how that fits the archetype of others you have interacted with. It's not typing by whether or not the relationship is positive, but rather how it best fits the informational dynamics of the intertype relations. 

For example, you could tentatively type someone as a Conflictor if something struck you that way, and watch to see if there is a pattern of impossible disagreement, then look more closely at other specifics to choose between other potentially negative interrelation scenarios. Obviously that wouldn't work unless you had a firm grasp on Model A and the IE's, but I think it's possible, with some background, to type "backwards" from relationship, since the relationships are based from info metabolism. You would just have to have an understanding of the subtlety within the model.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

marzipan01 said:


> Is that sarcasm?


You are attratced to people for personal reasons. Attraction is something based on looks, personality(not type), behavior etc, similarities etc. You can be atrratced to someone and have no compatbility with them, likewise you can be compatible and not be attracted - why would you be? People are attratced to one other for reasons other than type.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Typhon said:


> You are attratced to people for personal reasons. Attraction is something based on looks, personality(not type), behavior etc, similarities etc. You can be atrratced to someone and have no compatbility with them, likewise you can be compatible and not be attracted - why would you be? People are attratced to one other for reasons other than type.


Yes but the nature of attraction itself is a topic of great fascination. If you are attracted to someone's personality and greatly enjoy their company, perhaps it is attraction generated from your nature's true desire for your dual.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

marzipan01 said:


> Yes but the nature of attraction itself is a topic of great fascination. If you are attracted to someone's personality and greatly enjoy their company, perhaps it is attraction generated from your nature's true desire for your dual.


Perhaps. Being compatible might make one more attratcive, but I still say it is just one of many factors. I say that socionics explains relations in a Ti fashion, whereas attraction happens in an Fi one. I have a hard time seeing compatibility as subjective(since according to socionics, it is not) whereas attraction is purely subjective.


----------



## ParetoCaretheStare (Jan 18, 2012)

Typhon said:


> Perhaps. Being compatible might make one more attratcive, but I still say it is just one of many factors. I say that socionics explains relations in a Ti fashion, whereas attraction happens in an Fi one. I have a hard time seeing compatibility as subjective(since according to socionics, it is not) whereas attraction is purely subjective.


Absolutely agree here. Plus duality consists of a definition which highlights that both people feel completely at ease to be themselves, so negative people stay negative, pessimistic, whereas positive people keep hope alive...it's not necessarily attraction when a bored, cold-about-life individual feels completely comfortable staying the same way and seeing no reason to want to change themselves, no?


----------



## ParetoCaretheStare (Jan 18, 2012)

marzipan01 said:


> Yes but the nature of attraction itself is a topic of great fascination. If you are attracted to someone's personality and greatly enjoy their company, perhaps it is attraction generated from your nature's true desire for your dual.


Also we must remind ourselves that the Myers-Briggs theory was created by an idealist, so isn't logic overridden by the inconsistent nature of its own classification?


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

@_Tharwen_
Are you sure these were even ISTJs? How do you go about typing other people, anyway?

I'm not so sure about you being an EIE. ESE, maybe.

And raping?  Are you saying this literally or what.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Typhon said:


> Perhaps. Being compatible might make one more attratcive, but I still say it is just one of many factors. I say that socionics explains relations in a Ti fashion, whereas attraction happens in an Fi one. I have a hard time seeing compatibility as subjective(since according to socionics, it is not) whereas attraction is purely subjective.


I understand what you're saying. It's like if I say, "Wow, I really like that painting." And then someone else says, "The artist used a lot of blue." Both are true but completely separate statements. Me really liking the painting is purely subjective, the fact that the artist used a lot of blue is completely objective. *But,* and hear me out on this, _blue is my favorite color_ *so maybe *I like the painting so much because I loved the artist's use of the color blue which is my preference. See? See how that works?  The objective just got subjectified.


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

Figure said:


> Hmm.
> 
> I agree with you that it's not a good idea to encourage others to type by the positivity or negativity of a relationship, especially not right away when you're first learning about the types.
> 
> ...


Exactly. I think the key point is to understand that the socionics descriptions are not definitions but pointers or hints to be taken. They point at a specific reality or dynamics and learning socionics is about doing the work of finding out what exactly was intended. Basically learning to observe Model A in real life, the reality behind the theory. Conflict relationship is not any conflict, it is something very specific and observing our own and the partners reactions we can learn exactly what it is.

I often type people by "relationship". By that I mean the specific reactions and nuances that I percieve between us, and that I have learned through experience that are connected to model A.

I think the conflict relationship is usually just as it is described: An underlying conflict that seldom developes. It gets locked in a sort of balance of terror. I also think that conflict in a perverted way can seem compatible. Partners can help each other in super ego matters. The problem is of course that this help is conscious and also disturbing and creating tension. But I can get great help and advice from LIEs, it's just that we are helpless on a closer psychological distance, totally rubbing each other the wrong way.


----------



## Tharwen (Mar 20, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> @_Tharwen_
> Are you sure these were even ISTJs? How do you go about typing other people, anyway?
> 
> I'm not so sure about you being an EIE. ESE, maybe.
> ...


i feel their "souls" or whatever people call it in these modern days.

not sure about that self typing either. atm, intp 4w3 makes a lot sense. you know how 4w3 are as children? like the most charming people ever. i was exactly that way before my problems started.

and yes, i was speaking literally.

or idk.. infj would make alot sense too.. =S (like infj 5w6, since im lost in a thoery mania. making all kinds of theories, like unhealthy 5s, while being totally lost in them and out of touch with reality, which is also a common thing for unhealthy infjs. and that mindless melodram of mine is just me operating on my 4w3 fix.)


----------



## psych9000 (May 14, 2013)

DAM estjs telling me what to do and exactly how things should be down and how i must respect them for no reason baaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh


----------



## JWC3 (Jun 4, 2012)

Disclaimer: I only read the OP so this may have already been said.

Behavior or actions that others try to incite in you contrary to your own lifestyle or choices aren't necessarily indicative of a relationship of conflict. Your conflictor, more often than not, is someone who you will have limited interpersonal interaction with, if any at all. They are commonly perceived as someone who may mean well but seems to go about things incorrectly from your perspective or experience. While relationships of conflict between individuals who exist at a close psychological distance can be very abrasive, generally conflictors don't really have a desire to initiate even a cordial or passing acquaintanceship with one another.


----------

