# Quadra wars, the madning prospect of no resolutions.



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I will flesh out what I've realized after reading Alfred Adler. (ENFj)
This is my opinion after thinking long and hard on these issues.

I feel that I've reached a certain solidity on how his ideas merge with Jungian ideas,
so I thought I would share my thoughs here.
Mostly to see if someone else can point out something that helps me see a fuller picture.

Okay here we go.

Cooperation leads according to Adler to an alleviation of feelings of inferiority.
To be able to cooperate one will have to meet on a level of common sense.
In other words on an *objective *level. 
It is clear* to me* from reading his books that objective to him is what we know as Fe and Se.

Furthermore he talks about how competition is fostered by isolating oneself from others.
Pointing out what I would guess to be Ti as the culprint of isolation from Fe.
After serving us tons of accurate ideas on how the ebb and flow of cooperation vs competition work,
he serves us a very Beta/ENFj fantasy of the strong benevolent leader leading the flock to eternal peace.

Now that would be fine and dandy if we all where Beta's, but unfortunately we have three other quadras.
Who use two other objective functions to facilitate cooperation.
The group feeling Adler refer to only goes as far as Alpha and Beta, leaving Delta and Gamma.
Both of them having Fi who at all costs want to isolate themself from the Fe collective.

Hence we are left wondering, how can there ever be any resolution when this is true.

Fi isolates itself from Fe.
Ti isolates itself from Te.
Si isolates itself from Se.
Ni isolates itself from Ne.

Universal cooperation is impossible because of this.
Hence competition is automatically sparked, isolation guarantees hostility.
Since competition either fuels inferiority or hides it behind a temporary feeling of superiority,
we are doomed by our object and subject choices to be cruel to the other quadras
or if we hold back out of misguided mercy, be subject to their cruelty instead.
The cruelty is a both a intrusion on the subjective isolated function of the other
and at the same time a mockery of their favoured object.

In fact the only real cooperation that you can ever have that is pure is intra quadra.
Everything else is at best a fragile compromise at worst a pact with the devil.

Now feel free to be vicious, informative, cruel, challenging, or whatever else feels natural
to my assertions here. I expect it and kinda welcome it, needed to get this off my chest.


----------



## somnuvore (Sep 27, 2013)

As long as an individual believes their cooperation should be voluntary and their competition should be peaceful, I care not if they differ from me. I don't believe there's anything about Fe which will force others to conform--they may expect conformity, but forcing it is more a matter of ethics than personality. Just as I wouldn't shove my Te down a person's throat; I think I know the best way to do something and if others agree, they will follow me naturally; I have no desire to force an individual to do what I believe is best.

The problem isn't differences in beliefs; the problem is a common acceptance that we must force others to believe in what we believe, using violence "if necessary". We've chilled out with this shit in regards to religion--we no longer kill people if they don't believe in our God--but we still have this whole central government thing to deal with which may as well be itself a religion. But anyway, consider this: it took many people of many different quadras to produce your computer, and they were all able to cooperate just fine, even if they don't necessarily get along at a personal level. I think we all agree that this is ideal; our brains simply cannot handle more than a certain amount of relationships at one time. And I see no reason why, in our personal lives, we should not be able to decide who we will include in our lives and who we will not. This is precisely why I reference central government: here, we do not have a choice who we will include in our lives (rather, we may be punished if we decide not to include congress in our lives), which is a problem for everyone, not for two out of four quadras.

Your ENFj is doing nothing necessarily wrong, at first glance; it's perfectly fine if he wants a man-god to lead people into the promised lands. The issue involved is whether the ENFj believes people should be forced to follow his leader. Once this moral catastrophe is resolved in global society, it becomes a non-issue; the alphas and the betas can have their man-gods, the gammas and the deltas can be left alone, everyone's happy, world peace, prosperity and posterity etc. etc.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

The problem is with people having the means to better other people's lives but with the nagging feeling that if they do... they will only worsen their own position. It's the way of the world to climb the ladder off the backs of other people.



> Petyr Baelish: "Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies, a story we agree to tell each other over and over until we forget that it's a lie."
> Varys: "But what do we have left once we abandon the lie? Chaos, a gaping pit, waiting to swallow us all."
> Petyr Baelish: "Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb; they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is."


The best way to insure a civil, and just, society is to decentralize power. At the same time as reducing barriers to cooperation, such as a tribal mentality. Reward cooperation more than the reward is to climb over other people.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Elyasis but isn't that a very democratic thing to believe? While individual beliefs are unrelated to Quadra logic, I do think all quadras have a ruling idea that governs their relationship with authority like this:





And maybe it's coincidental, maybe not, but I think it's funny that you managed to capture a quote with an ILI-Te discussing the subject with an IEI-Ni.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

somnuvore said:


> As long as an individual believes their cooperation should be voluntary and their competition should be peaceful, I care not if they differ from me. I don't believe there's anything about Fe which will force others to conform--they may expect conformity, but forcing it is more a matter of ethics than personality. Just as I wouldn't shove my Te down a person's throat; I think I know the best way to do something and if others agree, they will follow me naturally; I have no desire to force an individual to do what I believe is best.


Well sure, but that is just because Te has a major say in how the inner affairs of most civil nations are run.
When Fe runs the show, like in wartime. Cooperating with the enemy is dubbed a crime.
You see to Fe the group is considered an individual. The group treats all other groups as individuals.
Hence if you don't act in accordance with your group the "benevolent leader" must find a way to "fix you".
If you look at the world as just lots of individuals and groups as just loose connections between them,
then it can indeed be hard to understand how you cooperating all over the place on a Te basis
would anger and hurt people who feel cooperation should only happen on a Fe level.



> The problem isn't differences in beliefs; the problem is a common acceptance that we must force others to believe in what we believe, using violence "if necessary". We've chilled out with this shit in regards to religion--we no longer kill people if they don't believe in our God--but we still have this whole central government thing to deal with which may as well be itself a religion. But anyway, consider this: it took many people of many different quadras to produce your computer, and they were all able to cooperate just fine, even if they don't necessarily get along at a personal level. I think we all agree that this is ideal; our brains simply cannot handle more than a certain amount of relationships at one time. And I see no reason why, in our personal lives, we should not be able to decide who we will include in our lives and who we will not. This is precisely why I reference central government: here, we do not have a choice who we will include in our lives (rather, we may be punished if we decide not to include congress in our lives), which is a problem for everyone, not for two out of four quadras.


Central goverment being a Delta machination.
Just insert a tiny bureacuracy and slowly grow it until nothing can move without the handlers of the systems permission.

As for the computer, yes it got built.
But how many people had to suffer and subjugate to an alien form of cooperation for it to arrive.
Cooperation does happen on a macro level.
We have built a society who seems to cooperate, but underneath it operates on a brutal fight to the death.
This manifests in the feelings of inferiority we all have when we are confronted with what pop-culture
have dubbed the rat race. 
Anyone who is at the top of this rat race have gotten a shallow leg up in a feeling of superiority.
But at any moment someone else could manage to find a way to outmanouver them and take their place.
Superiority is therefore based in fear, fear of losing, losing to everyone else who is your enemy.
If you start to cooperate instead, you find that the both the inferiority and superiority goes away.
But as I'm trying to point out, full cooperation stops at your quadra.
Cause the other quadras ideas of cooperation is so alien from your own.
So what you end up finding is that you cooperate with your own 
*until you meet a collective of other cooperators who have a different idea of what cooperation even is.
*Then the two groups of cooperators start to compete.
Communism vs Capitalism, Atheism vs Religion etc etc



> Your ENFj is doing nothing necessarily wrong, at first glance; it's perfectly fine if he wants a man-god to lead people into the promised lands. The issue involved is whether the ENFj believes people should be forced to follow his leader. Once this moral catastrophe is resolved in global society, it becomes a non-issue; the alphas and the betas can have their man-gods, the gammas and the deltas can be left alone, everyone's happy, world peace, prosperity and posterity etc. etc.


Well that is the thing, you see once you have a benevolent leader, he needs to look after the need of the growing flock.
Anyone who is outside the flock isolated becomes the competition. Flocks have a tendency to plant flags.
In essence claim property on behalf of the group. Hence as the flock grows it really depends on the leader.
Can he transend the object subject barriers dealing with other ways of living?
Or will he as history shows us misunderstand completely 
and dub them criminals and enemies of cooperation as he knows it.
Adler himself thought that any inclination towards not having "social feeling" Fe needed to go trough therapy.
Hence we seice you and make you integrate.
We are the borg if you will.



Elyasis said:


> The problem is with people having the means to better other people's lives but with the nagging feeling that if they do... they will only worsen their own position. It's the way of the world to climb the ladder off the backs of other people.


 Well yes it is that way because of the failiure to see eye to eye on these very issues.



> The best way to insure a civil, and just, society is to decentralize power. At the same time as reducing barriers to cooperation, such as a tribal mentality. Reward cooperation more than the reward is to climb over other people.


Who decides what type of cooperation is rewarded??? :-/


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

hornet said:


> Fi isolates itself from Fe.
> Ti isolates itself from Te.
> Si isolates itself from Se.
> Ni isolates itself from Ne.


While I don't firmly agree with competition being necessary in any way, I will say that the above quoted section is quite necessarily true. Because having any of the first in your ego block means you will have it's opposite in your id block, which are all unvalued functions.

Also... @ephemereality, that video strikes me much more as Gamma - Se. So not really aristocracy at all.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> While I don't firmly agree with competition being necessary in any way, I will say that the above quoted section is quite necessarily true. Because having any of the first in your ego block means you will have it's opposite in your id block, which are all unvalued functions.
> 
> Also... @ephemereality, that video strikes me much more as Gamma - Se. So not really aristocracy at all.


No. That guy is such a beta. You see that in the use and direction of his Fe. Notice how he manipulates the class and separates into groups of being with or against the group unity. It's exactly what hornet described about Adler's view on competition.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

hornet said:


> I will flesh out what I've realized after reading Alfred Adler. (ENFj)
> This is my opinion after thinking long and hard on these issues.
> 
> I feel that I've reached a certain solidity on how his ideas merge with Jungian ideas,
> ...


This is good. Universal cooperation isn't a goal we should be striving for. Lately competition gets a lot of bad press; it's my belief that what is getting bad press is high levels of competition, not competition period. I think we need more cooperation, but a totally cooperative environment would be extremely susceptible to problems like stagnation, and take-over by a few individuals who understand how to appear cooperative while actually acting only in their own interest. 

It's also important to remember that your and my preferences for more cooperation is probably type-influenced. Even setting aside type, many people don't see competition personally at all; for them it's all a big game. And they thrive under those conditions.

I do agree that a lot of theories about cooperation actually play to the author's experience. The author sees he/she can work well with some people, but attributes it to some theory instead of realizing these are the kind of people who are most likely to be receptive to his/her methods anyway.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

My idea of what would actually help people get along on a macro level is an even greater threat that threatens the entirety of the Earth. I see that as having a strong chance of working as it would lead to large scale cooperation and a united front against a common enemy. It would probably be temporary though, if the threat was defeated with no chance of it returning. Basically, working it so we see the entire human race as part of our tribe. Making a somewhat negative aspect of psychology into a positive.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> While I don't firmly agree with competition being necessary in any way, I will say that the above quoted section is quite necessarily true. Because having any of the first in your ego block means you will have it's opposite in your id block, which are all unvalued functions.


Competition necessary. Well I wasn't trying to make it an imperrative here.
Like *"We must compete! Competition is good!*"
I was trying to point out that we can't seem to escape it having so different types.
It was more from the frame of 
*"We seem to be stuck with this competition thing... Or have I missed something?"*



Kollenhausen said:


> This is good. Universal cooperation isn't a goal we should be striving for. Lately competition gets a lot of bad press; it's my belief that what is getting bad press is high levels of competition, not competition period. I think we need more cooperation, but a totally cooperative environment would be extremely susceptible to problems like stagnation, and take-over by a few individuals who understand how to appear cooperative while actually acting only in their own interest.
> 
> It's also important to remember that your and my preferences for more cooperation is probably type-influenced. Even setting aside type, many people don't see competition personally at all; for them it's all a big game. And they thrive under those conditions.
> 
> I do agree that a lot of theories about cooperation actually play to the author's experience. The author sees he/she can work well with some people, but attributes it to some theory instead of realizing these are the kind of people who are most likely to be receptive to his/her methods anyway.


So what you are saying that if we didn't have competition our society would be unbalanced.
It is basically a macro balancing mechanism that in the process ties us all to suffering on a micro level.
*"You are in the Matrix!"* or *"You can't escape the rat race!"* sort of thing.



Elyasis said:


> My idea of what would actually help people get along on a macro level is an even greater threat that threatens the entirety of the Earth. I see that as having a strong chance of working as it would lead to large scale cooperation and a united front against a common enemy. It would probably be temporary though, if the threat was defeated with no chance of it returning. Basically, working it so we see the entire human race as part of our tribe. Making a somewhat negative aspect of psychology into a positive.


Yes the alien invasion thing seems like a likely nation peace driver.
After we have almost been wiped out Independence day style. xD



ephemereality said:


> No. That guy is such a beta. You see that in the use and direction of his Fe. Notice how he manipulates the class and separates into groups of being with or against the group unity. It's exactly what hornet described about Adler's view on competition.



At least Adler had the good sense to recognice that punishment was not helping.
But he liked using "group pressure" to make kids comply.
However his version of group pressure did sound gentle compared to what I saw in your vid.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> Competition necessary. Well I wasn't trying to make it an imperrative here.
> Like *"We must compete! Competition is good!*"
> I was trying to point out that we can't seem to escape it having so different types.
> It was more from the frame of
> *"We seem to be stuck with this competition thing... Or have I missed something?"*


Not surprised that an alpha is opposed competition as a concept. From a quadra-perspective, alpha seems to be the least driven or inclined towards competition. It seems to be a logical result of Ne and Fe. My ESE grandmother harbors such sentiments for example. She strongly believes that only if people loved each other more, a lot of the world's problems would go away. 



> At least Adler had the good sense to recognice that punishment was not helping.
> But he liked using "group pressure" to make kids comply.
> However his version of group pressure did sound gentle compared to what I saw in your vid.


Yes, the video is extreme but it's also a piece of fiction. I do however think that it strongly exemplifies how betas mobilize though. It's noticeable how the Fi gamma types (the ones opposed the idea of leadership) actually never thought about the importance of a leader but simply saw themselves as individuals who were working towards a common goal.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

hornet said:


> Yes the alien invasion thing seems like a likely nation peace driver.
> After we have almost been wiped out Independence day style. xD


Possibly Aliens... or some sort of extinction event. If the sun was threatening to expand to engulf us we would hopefully pull together in that time, preferably long before then, to ensure species survival.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Elyasis said:


> Possibly Aliens... or some sort of extinction event. If the sun was threatening to expand to engulf us we would hopefully pull together in that time, preferably long before then, to ensure species survival.


Though one can already argue this external conflict exists when it comes to global warming, but then countries are bitching about how it's unfair to use X technology or release Y amount of greenhouse gases when country A does and B does not. 

I think it is intrinsic for humans to keep their self-interest first in their mind, and this interest only expands as to far our collective identity goes. Why would Indians care about what Americans think? Exactly, they wouldn't.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Though one can already argue this external conflict exists when it comes to global warming, but then countries are bitching about how it's unfair to use X technology or release Y amount of greenhouse gases when country A does and B does not.
> 
> I think it is intrinsic for humans to keep their self-interest first in their mind, this interest only expands as to far our collective identity goes.


Many are deluded into thinking it's not actually a problem. Particularly in the US because of aggressive ad campaigns and political buy-outs that essentially turn the dial down on the people saying global warming is real. This leads to a certain amount of people thinking it's not a pressing concern. If they actually thought about it, and were given accurate information, and weren't having this issue so politicized... I should think most people would want to do something about it, so long as it was something they could feasibly do.

We need cleaner and more efficient energy sources. And less pollution. The problem is getting big business to comply when they make a killing off doing it the worst ways possible.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Elyasis said:


> Many are deluded into thinking it's not actually a problem. Particularly in the US because of aggressive ad campaigns and political buy-outs that essentially turn the dial down on the people saying global warming is real. This leads to a certain amount of people thinking it's not a pressing concern. If they actually thought about it, and were given accurate information, and weren't having this issue so politicized... I should think most people would want to do something about it, so long as it was something they could feasibly do.
> 
> We need cleaner and more efficient energy sources. And less pollution. The problem is getting big business to comply when they make a killing off doing it the worst ways possible.


That would be true regardless of what catastrophe we are facing, I think. Even if it means the sun. Some people just don't want to believe because it goes against their personal interests.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> That would be true regardless of what catastrophe we are facing, I think. Even if it means the sun. Some people just don't want to believe because it goes against their personal interests.


Nobody sane argues with the suns eventual expansion. Whether it is going to happen anytime soon... It most likely isn't. I was just going for the one most people agree will happen, sooner or later.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Elyasis said:


> Nobody sane argues with the suns eventual expansion. Whether it is going to happen anytime soon... It most likely isn't. I was just going for the one most people agree will happen, sooner or later.


Which assumes that people are indeed sane. I might argue that the statement itself is questionable XD Denial is a common coping mechanism. Easy to observe in the terminally ill, for example.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Not surprised that an alpha is opposed competition as a concept. From a quadra-perspective, alpha seems to be the least driven or inclined towards competition. It seems to be a logical result of Ne and Fe. My ESE grandmother harbors such sentiments for example. She strongly believes that only if people loved each other more, a lot of the world's problems would go away.


Hmm so how does that change when Ne meets Te?
If only people followed the rules more the problems would go away? xD

Hypoteses:
Ne/Fe: If only people loved each other more the problems would go away.
Ne/Te: If only people followed the rules more the problems would go away.
Se/Te: If only people kept to their own buisness the problems would go away.
Se/Fe: If only people had their nose in everyone elses buisness the problems would go away.

Might be a bit stereotypical, but somehow it fits.



> Yes, the video is extreme but it's also a piece of fiction. I do however think that it strongly exemplifies how betas mobilize though. It's noticeable how the Fi gamma types (the ones opposed the idea of leadership) actually never thought about the importance of a leader but simply saw themselves as individuals who were working towards a common goal.


Yeah it almost strikes me as Fe spelled out so no one can be in doubt what this is about.
Fe+Se in real life is usually a bit more subtle.
Not that it isn't obvious to me. 
Wonder if that is a natural talent or comes with the territory of having an ENFj sister?


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Which assumes that people are indeed sane. I might argue that the statement itself is questionable XD Denial is a common coping mechanism. Easy to observe in the terminally ill, for example.


If people aren't sane... screw it. I'll get myself off this rock, if they want to stay and burn... so be it.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

hornet said:


> Competition necessary. Well I wasn't trying to make it an imperrative here.
> Like *"We must compete! Competition is good!*"
> I was trying to point out that we can't seem to escape it having so different types.
> It was more from the frame of
> *"We seem to be stuck with this competition thing... Or have I missed something?"*


Ah... I understand a bit now. I think competition can be avoided granted enough space and psychological security. I think duality largely reduces the need for competition, however, it does seem that competition tends to happen a lot between personality types.



hornet said:


> Hmm so how does that change when Ne meets Te?
> If only people followed the rules more the problems would go away? xD
> 
> Hypoteses:
> ...


This is hilarious :laughing:





hornet said:


> Yeah it almost strikes me as Fe spelled out so no one can be in doubt what this is about.
> Fe+Se in real life is usually a bit more subtle.
> Not that it isn't obvious to me.
> Wonder if that is a natural talent or comes with the territory of having an ENFj sister?


The video is probably a Gamma view (and most specifically probably an ILI view) of Se-Fe. So the Fe looks a bit distorted to actual Fe users.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> The video is probably a Gamma view (and most specifically probably an ILI view) of Se-Fe. So the Fe looks a bit distorted to actual Fe users.


Yeah kinda how Ne becomes distorted for me.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

hornet said:


> Hmm so how does that change when Ne meets Te?
> If only people followed the rules more the problems would go away? xD
> 
> Hypoteses:
> ...


Hmm, I've never cared that much about rules. I'd like to see introverted versions of these. 

Si/Fi: If only people understood and respected others' subjective internal experience without judging or trying to change them the problems would go away.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> Yeah it almost strikes me as Fe spelled out so no one can be in doubt what this is about.
> Fe+Se in real life is usually a bit more subtle.
> Not that it isn't obvious to me.
> Wonder if that is a natural talent or comes with the territory of having an ENFj sister?


Yes, so it does come off as a bit of something more akin to an Fe caricature than actual Fe, I agree. 

@Tainted Streetlight if you said that the video was told from a gamma perspective, then yes, I agree, the show is a very gamma SF show in my opinion, but the character I was trying to depict is definitely not a gamma.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

hornet said:


> Yeah kinda how Ne becomes distorted for me.


How so?

I think it'd be pretty interesting to hear


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> How so?
> 
> I think it'd be pretty interesting to hear


Hard to explain since it is a very concrete experience.
But it is like someone is trying to bend reality in on itself by the force of their words.
You can't take it seriously, and if you do, you start feeling like you are going mad.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

hornet said:


> Competition necessary. Well I wasn't trying to make it an imperrative here.
> Like *"We must compete! Competition is good!*"
> I was trying to point out that we can't seem to escape it having so different types.
> It was more from the frame of
> *"We seem to be stuck with this competition thing... Or have I missed something?"*


All of this is true, and this is why any ideological and political schemes the goal of which is to attain a perfect harmonious conflict-free society are destined to fail. Competition of the opposing ideas and needs is here to stay. However, competition can be constructive (for example running a marathon for a fundraiser) and destructive (nuclear war) and we have to ensure that we engage in constructive competition that doesn't set destruction of the opposite side as its objective.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

cyamitide said:


> All of this is true, and this is why any ideological and political schemes the goal of which is to attain a perfect harmonious conflict-free society are destined to fail. Competition of the opposing ideas and needs is here to stay. However, competition can be constructive (for example running a marathon for a fundraiser) and destructive (nuclear war) and we have to ensure that we engage in constructive competition that doesn't set destruction of the opposite side as its objective.


Sure, but the irony is that when you use competition to cooperate on a macro scale.
People on the micro scale suffer for it.
Hence you build your advances on suffering.
Now the level of suffering may vary from case to case.
But righting a wrong, by doing a wrong, don't seem to me to be anything you can really feel good about.
Putting other people down never ought to make you feel good.
But that is how we run things, we have no choice, 
just saying hello to someone can be a competition.
One guy is dress very stylish and the other is not. Now the not stylish person feels bad.
And the stylish person feels validated by the body language of the other person not feeling good.

I tested it the other day, I was dressed really shabby on purpose and soon enough I ran into
a person that dresses really stylish, that I was kinda obligated to say hello to.
I acted like the mindblowing difference in or appearance was of no concern and he was weirded out.
If I had acted like I felt inferior he would have felt validated.

What I'm trying to say is that everyday we are in a battle of superiority with people around us.
Some notice conciously others don't, but we are all in the matrix so to speak.

Edit: (Additional thoughts)
Was I cruel for being selfish and keeping myself balanced and unaffected from the outer stylish apperances of the guy I met?

I knew that by not acting like I felt inferior, I made him feel bad.

Do we carry a responsibility for the reactions other have towards us if we are aware
that our actions trigger the response?

Trying to micromanage others reactions to you is a big chore.
So since it isn't really feasible we have the options.
Either deny ourself to make others feel good or to make ourself feel good
and by proxy make others feel bad since they can pick up on what you feel.

I've tested this with people with an outer apperance of success over and over.
If you don't feel bad by their precence they get weirded out and avoid you.

Yeah just some random thoughts on the subject.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

I wish I could downvote things on PerC, including individual replies.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Cantarella said:


> I wish I could downvote things on PerC, including individual replies.


Well by replying you essentially upwote the thread the reply is in.
I was about to ask that the problem was, but I'm going to guess you had some moral issues.
I can't help you with you morals, so I'll just move on.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> Hmm, I've never cared that much about rules. I'd like to see introverted versions of these.
> 
> Si/Fi: If only people understood and respected others' subjective internal experience without judging or trying to change them the problems would go away.



Trying to think of a axiom for Ni/Fi... it's somehow difficult? It really shouldn't be, but it is.

Ni/Fi: If only people were more introspective and self-correcting; they would be able to see their problems clearly and fix them before they became an issue.










*Here is a picture of grumpy cat to apologise for my lack of coherence.*​


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Elyasis said:


> Trying to think of a axiom for Ni/Fi... it's somehow difficult? It really shouldn't be, but it is.
> 
> Ni/Fi: If only people were more introspective and self-correcting; they would be able to see their problems clearly and fix them before they became an issue.
> 
> ...


Perhaps more like:

If only people could see the true nature of who they are, people would have an easier time to respect and understand each other's differences in order to get along.

Some such. Thus separating the difference between experience and some kind of more archetype intuitive idea of people. I tend to think of people usually representing some essential archetype a lot, so less about their experiences in life but more how they fit a certain primordial image.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Elyasis said:


> Trying to think of a axiom for Ni/Fi... it's somehow difficult? It really shouldn't be, but it is.
> 
> Ni/Fi: If only people were more introspective and self-correcting; they would be able to see their problems clearly and fix them before they became an issue.
> 
> *Here is a picture of grumpy cat to apologise for my lack of coherence.*​





ephemereality said:


> Perhaps more like:
> 
> If only people could see the true nature of who they are, people would have an easier time to respect and understand each other's differences in order to get along.
> 
> Some such. Thus separating the difference between experience and some kind of more archetype intuitive idea of people. I tend to think of people usually representing some essential archetype a lot, so less about their experiences in life but more how they fit a certain primordial image.


Hmm the way this is going is very interesting as far as inner understanding goes for Gammas.
I think all of us feel on some level that if only people left the parts I want undisturbed alone,
everything would be just fine.

Unfortunately Only way to achieve that would be to evolve to a level of
Fi Si Ni Ti for my type and Ni Ti Fi Si for you type.
Complete detachment from any object.

As soon as any object is touched there will be friction somewhere with someone.
I guess the inner conflict from such an arrangement would be quite dramatic.
Barring some sort of brain upgrade by hardware or genetic manipulation, 
I don't see humanity getting rid of these issues for a long, long time.

The only real solution for anyone is to ignore the others and charge ahead on your own path.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, the video is extreme but it's also a piece of fiction. I do however think that it strongly exemplifies how betas mobilize though. It's noticeable how the Fi gamma types (the ones opposed the idea of leadership) actually never thought about the importance of a leader but simply saw themselves as individuals who were working towards a common goal.


..but is that really beta aristocracy or quadra related aristocracy? When I saw that moment I agreed by default with the gammas. Individuals with widely differing backgrounds working together for a common goal is an ideal that is preferable to having a leader regardless of said leader's skill, ethics and so on. Why is authority and structure even a requirement to group functioning as long as the individuals can get along enough to capitalize on each others differences, have each others backs. All one needs is some basic rules.

You gave an anime example so I'll give one as well since there is one about such a group of individuals:






I don't and I probably will never agree with having a leader or with conformity or a rigid hierarchical structure. None of it is really needed. People should not have to be anything but themselves even if they belong to a group. Diversity is fun and wonderful to see.

If you want a similar real world example you don't have to go far:* Anonymous or the Debian OS are just some examples of individuals working together towards a common goal.*


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

FreeBeer said:


> ..but is that really beta aristocracy or quadra related aristocracy? When I saw that moment I agreed by default with the gammas. Individuals with widely differing backgrounds working together for a common goal is an ideal that is preferable to having a leader regardless of said leader's skill, ethics and so on. Why is authority and structure even a requirement to group functioning as long as the individuals can get along enough to capitalize on each others differences, have each others backs. All one needs is some basic rules.
> 
> You gave an anime example so I'll give one as well since there is one about such a group of individuals:
> 
> ...


Yeah it may seem that ENFp's are all about the same things as the Gammas in that respect.
However what I'm seeing in that video is basically the inner Delta quadra battle between Ne/Fi and Si/Te.
You guys have old dusty guilds that focus too much on rules and using people as pawns.
So we will create a new guild *that will give us the freedom*, to be at the top of the hierarchy in our own order.
Let 50 years pass, by and whoops, we have ended up just as nasty as our former "oppressors".
On the Ne/Fi end of the scale there is this constant battle of having their idea heard.
Whoever shouts highest or have the most cool ideas, becomes the leader so to speak.
Then some inferior or tert Si slowly makes whatever happens along the way into the order of things.
Every time there is some new thing happening there is always some ENFp plotting a revolution.
Their revolution always ends up with them on top and the old Si/Te order dethroned.
ENFp's are more subtle than their Beta counterpart of ENFj 
since they can't just push the Fe button to have instant cooperation, with the group.
No rules need to be suggested and bickered over, and somehow bent in the interest of the "revolution".
That is where Ne excels, bending things out of shape is basically it's only speciality.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> ..but is that really beta aristocracy or quadra related aristocracy? When I saw that moment I agreed by default with the gammas. Individuals with widely differing backgrounds working together for a common goal is an ideal that is preferable to having a leader regardless of said leader's skill, ethics and so on. Why is authority and structure even a requirement to group functioning as long as the individuals can get along enough to capitalize on each others differences, have each others backs. All one needs is some basic rules.
> 
> You gave an anime example so I'll give one as well since there is one about such a group of individuals:
> 
> ...


Yes, but you have to keep in mind that the guy in the video is a beta, *not* a delta. Delta and beta aristocracy are diametrically opposed just like alpha and gamma democracy are diametrically opposed. Of course you won't agree with him because the driving logic in that video is Se and Fe, whereas you are Fi. I don't agree with him either because Fi.


----------



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

ephemereality said:


> Yes, but you have to keep in mind that the guy in the video is a beta, *not* a delta. Delta and beta aristocracy are diametrically opposed just like alpha and gamma democracy are diametrically opposed. Of course you won't agree with him because the driving logic in that video is Se and Fe, whereas you are Fi. I don't agree with him either because Fi.


Now I wonder if you have any anime-examples of Delta aristocracy. >_> Or did I miss it?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Now I wonder if you have any anime-examples of Delta aristocracy. >_> Or did I miss it?


Off-hand, the structure of Soul Society in Bleach seems delta-ish. Yamamoto is definitely an LSE.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

hornet said:


> Yeah it may seem that ENFp's are all about the same things as the Gammas in that respect.
> However what I'm seeing in that video is basically the inner Delta quadra battle between Ne/Fi and Si/Te.
> You guys have old dusty guilds that focus too much on rules and using people as pawns.
> So we will create a new guild *that will give us the freedom*, to be at the top of the hierarchy in our own order.
> ...


I don't really understand this ENFp delta aristocracy stuff you are talking about. As far as I am concerned I don't really care about the rules, hierarchy, leaders or revolution. What I do is simple, I follow what I think is right (inner guidance) and to hell with anyone or anything in my way as long as I am not cruel to other beings or just plain dumb and closed minded. One way or another I will avoid subjugation to Fe or Te rules. Preferably not in the stupid way. I know reality better then to push for some distant future ideal, when I can just follow my inner guidance now.

 whenever it comes to this bs I pretty much have Natsu Dragneel's confrontational attitude. I am the boss of me and I live and die by my own will, whatever goes against my inner sense of right and wrong I'll attempt to crush & overcome....because it pisses me off to that extent. Whatever others decide is their own choice and I respond to that the best I can.

It is what I liked about Fairy Tail, everyone is their own person, they fight, bicker, quarrel and compete against each other, doing whatever they think is right on an individual basis, but when the chips are down they hold fast together and compensate for each others weaknesses. When I'm procrastinating and my brother comes making a snide remark about me not doing anything yet again, that shows he cares about me in his own way, even if it hurts and makes me want to punch him he made his point and pulled me out of it. Even if we argue and disagree, when shit hits the fan I have his back and he has mine.

-.- I also have one major problem...I can't handle someone being the boss of me, it goes against every fiber of my being. I can't follow or submit without getting angry if I disagree. This is a major problem at work and I'm tired of holding it back.

I don't like it when people are defined or piled together into groups of any kind....probably why I'm so uncomfortable being labeled and constantly feel like defying the stereotype. We are not the same and one can't judge all ENFPs based on theory. I will admit that there is something to Jung's theory and the enneagram simply because they work (not everything thou).


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

FreeBeer said:


> I don't really understand this ENFp delta aristocracy stuff you are talking about. As far as I am concerned I don't really care about the rules, hierarchy, leaders or revolution. What I do is simple, I follow what I think is right (inner guidance) and to hell with anyone or anything in my way as long as I am not cruel to other beings or just plain dumb and closed minded. One way or another I will avoid subjugation to Fe or Te rules. Preferably not in the stupid way. I know reality better then to push for some distant future ideal, when I can just follow my inner guidance now.
> 
> whenever it comes to this bs I pretty much have Natsu Dragneel's confrontational attitude. I am the boss of me and I live and die by my own will, whatever goes against my inner sense of right and wrong I'll attempt to crush & overcome....because it pisses me off to that extent. Whatever others decide is their own choice and I respond to that the best I can.
> 
> ...


I think "aristocracy" is so hard to spot, is because it isn't a concious or unconcious strategy.
*It is just what you end up with.*
By having the ENFp everything around you will be shaped into an "aristocratic" structure.
If you had all the time in the world you would always manouver yourself to be at the top of some pyramid.
Not because you nessicarily want to rule, but because *by following your inner guidance*
that is where you end up.
I also think that the Fs are the ones not thinking conciously about what they do,
while the Ts of every quadra are much more aware of the "aristocracy" or "democracy" they try to front.

Now I get that "aristocracy" has a bad ring to it in this day and age and that your resistance comes from this alone.
But from what I can observe it is true, I had the privilege of watching an ENFp and an ISTp have a big power struggle.
It was very educational, and I could really see how the Si/Te was very concious of his motives
while the Ne/Fi was like reacting all over the place.
In the end the Si/Te got outmanovered and left for dead he and his allies booted from the group.


----------



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

hornet said:


> But from what I can observe it is true, I had the privilege of watching an ENFp and an ISTp have a big power struggle.


What kind of power struggle was this?


----------

