# Idealism around relationships vs reality



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Yesterday I was a bit depressed, it was a depression that was long overdue.
I basically had an ENTJ/LIE girl prove to me a ISFP/ESI guy that the whole notion of duality in Socionics are easily trumped by cultural forces.
I hadn't fallen for her, given my heart or anything,
her behavior was just a final nail in the coffin of the idea of duality being something "magic" that trump everything.

In that way you could say that the "redpillers" have it right from a certain point of view.

(Of course dropping the pill nomenclature in this thread will draw all sorts of warriors of light and darkness in here,
thinking that they idealistic agenda can be furthered and hearts may be swayed for the good/bad cause)

My point isn't to import a whole paradigm of thinking from those subcultures, but just to admit that our individualistic freedom culture,
really does make stable monogamous relationships more or less impossible with fully integrated members of that society.

To throw in the usual disclaimer, I don't think that the freedom is wrong, it just makes traditional monogamous relationships obsolete.
Which is why I will never marry, as the whole thing is structurally unsound for the stated purpose.

Regardless I find myself in a more or less a vacuum of what to do about the whole thing.
Sure you have the new META of redpill, but for someone who has read more Jung than most,
many of their ideas are shallow, reactionary and archetypically flawed.
Though as I said above, they have some valid points.

Right now, I'm living alone and seem to be able to take care of myself economically despite the whole Covid thing.
I would be hard pressed to support a traditional family anyway, which from a dating perspective would make me unviable anyway.
I'm very attactive to the other sex in terms of personality and have had attactive females offer me sex on several occations after a bit of flirting.
Though it is obvious they don't view me as anything more than a dick that are so in touch with the emotional and sensory reality of the act,
that it becomes much more than a pump and dump.

Previously that was quite traumatic for me, but after realizing how my libido attach itself to them by reading Freud, Jung and general attachment theory.
I've managed to find a way to deal intimately with the other sex without giving them my heart.

Still I have all these socially instilled ideals about monogamy and having a family,
and deluded bluepillers that regularly try to hint to me that I should work my ass of to afford a house with a fence, a car and a trophy wife.
The stereotypical middle class image of having successfully made it in other words.

To me the whole notion is absurd, more because the general archetypical affliction on women to be amazons and hetairas,
while at the same time being a demanding mother that want to have the best everything from the father to secure the family.
This while at the same time attacking any man that tries to succeed in any way shape or form.

This is called double-shaming and is a very common tactic used by psychopaths and narcissists.
Given that society has condoned and sanctioned this type of behavior as the norm, it is pointless to actually plan for anything else.
The reality is the reality, regardless of ideals and wishing for something else.

So my stance right now is to focus on decreasing my own suffering.
Invest in myself, not to impress the other sex, but to make my life more bearable.
My view of the other sex is that I respect them as fellow human beings.

I have no plan to invite any of these fellow humans into my life in the traditional way though.
Generally they are too occupied with playing very simple and predictable games with me.
When their games fail on me, they become interested, but it is an interest that is destructive,
their focus is on breaking me, winning my heart so they can crush it.
It becomes a game of capture the flag, where they have already torn their own flag to shreds and only care about the same fate for my flag.

Yeah, so I guess I just needed to get that off my chest, it will be interesting to see what various people have to say about this.
I have some theories, but expectation usually fail against what the world has to offer.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Red pill confuses me since it makes no sense to make a big deal about genders. If something's not working for you, then don't do it. Just live your life in the manner that you wish.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

mia-me said:


> Red pill confuses me since it makes no sense to make a big deal about genders. If something's not working for you, then don't do it. Just live your life in the manner that you wish.


Okay, so despite me making the point that redpill was something I imported one single point from, you chose to attach to it and make your whole reply about it.

So you advice is this!
JUST do this general ideal of independence that our society condones and encourages, and everything will be okay...

Watch too much Disney maybe?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Inveniet said:


> Okay, so despite me making the point that redpill was something I imported one single point from, you chose to attach to it and make your whole reply about it.


Sure since it was kinder to focus on redpill, than point out that while you disagree with their killing rage and dehumanization of women, there are aspects of what you're stating that's red pillish.



> So you advice is this!
> JUST do this general ideal of independence that our society condones and encourages, and everything will be okay...
> 
> Watch too much Disney maybe?


Firstly, I gave no advice, only an observation. Next, if you want advice, it would be to live your life the way you want whether it includes women or not. You do you. This is the same advice that I'd give women who are fed up with men. Go live your life the way you want. There's no one stopping you from doing so.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

mia-me said:


> Sure since it was kinder to focus on redpill, than point out that while you disagree with their killing rage and dehumanization of women, there are aspects of what you're stating that's red pillish.


Thank god that there was some deeper reflection behind that statement, I was worried I would have to discuss this with people who shallowly pick out quotes that make them feel good.

Red Pillish in that I agree with their observation on how monogamy is obsolete?
Or is there some other aspects you see there?
And please spare me your kindness, I'm here to learn, not be treated like fragile glass packed in cotton.

And to finally unravel what seem to be implied with your statement.
Do you mean to communicate that agreeing with any red pillish statements are morally wrong?
And if so, what is the logic behind that?



> Firstly, I gave no advice, only an observation. Next, if you want advice, it would be to live your life the way you want whether it includes women or not. You do you. This is the same advice that I'd give women who are fed up with men. Go live your life the way you want. There's no one stopping you from doing so.


Don't lie to me, we are only two people in this conversation so far, there is no audience to deceive yet but me.
You said,


> Just live your life in the manner that you wish.


That is advice, no way around it!

I will set up a list of the advice people offer here, so I don't lose track of or miss anything.

*Advice list:*
1. You live in a individualist society, shut up and follow the program!


----------



## Lady of Redstones (Apr 28, 2021)

Hey,

first of all, I can tell you that - from a historical/sociological point of view - I agree that the idea of marriage really is in conflict with the modern concept of freedom. I actually had to learn a bit about that for my studies, and I can tell you the following (if you don't already know it/are interested at all): Originally/in the middle ages, marriage never was about love, people in general weren't free in the modern sense, e.g. they mostly couldn't choose whom to marry (or if to marry at all, or when, for that matter) - it was all dictated by society, your family, the local ruler... Then, a lot of things changed: the idea of modern states and of modern citizens came up, protestantism was "invented" and allowed divorces -> turned marriage into a contract, the economics and ways people lived and worked/earned their living changed with modern capitalism and the industrialization... So the concrete living conditions of people AND the ideas about human beings, citizens (and also men and women) changed! (Of course this happened over centuries, but the impact on "modern day [western] culture" was _huge_!) 
Long story short: today, we are taught by society to expect _a lot_ from a partner, which one person might not even be able to give (llike: being best friends, having good sex, the feeling of "being in love" lasting forever... but at the same time: security in the sense of old-school gender roles: the man should provide, the woman should support him so he can provide - but those ideals are falling apart too so basically a lot of people are just confused) - in fact, many scholars agree that our modern-day conception of love and marriage is the basic reason so many people get divorced!

So: I understand your point (this one, at least), and there totally _is_ a discrepancy between idealism and reality!

BUT I would also like to stress that not all women are the same - I am sorry about your experiences, but I have had bad experiences too and I don't think that it helps to think "all men/women are like this or that so I will never have the relationship I desire". What helps more imho is to think about what the ideal relationship would be like and then to find someone who is like-minded.
Honestly, I don't think that many women today want to be a housewife with a husband who provides for them! Everyone with a bit of common sense will understand that this is impossible for most people because wages are too low anyway. But of course, those women who want to work outside the house and earn money expect their husband/partner to do household chores and taking care of the children too! Which is understandable, I hope. I mean, the "old model" was: breadwinner working outside the house and wife doing the work in the house (cooking, cleaning, planning, raising children, ...). This worked more or less ("more or less" because not all people were happy with that).
Now that this isn't possible anymore (because of low wages, basically), we have to find another share of work, e.g. both partners doing the same amout outside the house (paid work/bread winning) _and_ in the house (household chores and childcaring)! Of course every couple has to look how _they_ wanna share work between them, but I am _sick_ of men expecting women to earn their own money, do 90% of the unpaid work and probably look as if they stayed 25 forever! (not saying you are that kind of guy, I don't know you, but as I said, I have had bad experiences too^^)

Oh and don't believe everything that Freud and Jung say about women - they were men, so they didn't really have a clue to start with, and they lived 100 years ago. Things have changed. People and society have changed. And as human beings, they were influenced by the ideas of their time (like: women being weaker, less intelligent, ...). It is almost impossible to say anything about human "nature" (because we will never know how much of our behaviour is "nurture" and not "nature"). If you don't believe me: think about all those people saying that monogamy is against nature - that might even be true, but should we let that dominate how we live? No: we are still free to make choices - e.g. to not cheat on a partner, even if we have the impulse to do it because we feel attracted to someone else.

So, once again: don't give up hope, think about what relationship you would like (not what society expects from men or women) and find a partner who has similiar ideas. Oh, and I've heard that in a relationship one needs to compromise from time to time, too, just as a side note... Refrain from sexist bullshit like incels, "red/blue pill" stuff and (mainstream) porn, this will only worsen your image of women and lessen your chances of finding a partner!

Hope this helps!


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Hey!
Thanks for actually bothering to flesh out your stance as you see and understand it.

Thinking deeper on it, my annoyed reaction to the previous poster was mostly about me trying to bridge ideas I've spent years on
and being met with stereotypical stuff I've heard a million times.
The contrast of my appreciation to your response makes that abundantly clear, 
and I guess that I triggered the need to lie as a game of defense there.
Regardless onward to your response.



Lady of Redstones said:


> first of all, I can tell you that - from a historical/sociological point of view - I agree that the idea of marriage really is in conflict with the modern concept of freedom. I actually had to learn a bit about that for my studies, and I can tell you the following (if you don't already know it/are interested at all): Originally/in the middle ages, marriage never was about love, people in general weren't free in the modern sense, e.g. they mostly couldn't choose whom to marry (or if to marry at all, or when, for that matter) - it was all dictated by society, your family, the local ruler... Then, a lot of things changed: the idea of modern states and of modern citizens came up, protestantism was "invented" and allowed divorces -> turned marriage into a contract, the economics and ways people lived and worked/earned their living changed with modern capitalism and the industrialization... So the concrete living conditions of people AND the ideas about human beings, citizens (and also men and women) changed! (Of course this happened over centuries, but the impact on "modern day [western] culture" was _huge_!)
> Long story short: today, we are taught by society to expect _a lot_ from a partner, which one person might not even be able to give (llike: being best friends, having good sex, the feeling of "being in love" lasting forever... but at the same time: security in the sense of old-school gender roles: the man should provide, the woman should support him so he can provide - but those ideals are falling apart too so basically a lot of people are just confused) - in fact, many scholars agree that our modern-day conception of love and marriage is the basic reason so many people get divorced!
> 
> So: I understand your point (this one, at least), and there totally _is_ a discrepancy between idealism and reality!


Yeah that is pretty spot on, and very helpful contextually having it presented that way.



> BUT I would also like to stress that not all women are the same - I am sorry about your experiences, but I have had bad experiences too and I don't think that it helps to think "all men/women are like this or that so I will never have the relationship I desire". What helps more imho is to think about what the ideal relationship would be like and then to find someone who is like-minded.


Hmm, I'm not sure what to make of this, as it isn't just my experience that shows this, but the collective experience of many many people.
Else we wouldn't have blue, red and black pill movements popping up all over the place as a reaction.
If it was just me, then I would just be a heartbroken fool that luck have given a poor hand.
But as you just fleshed out in your opening paragraph, there are real reasons for this that go beyond my power to rectify,
culture has made most women that way, and even if they hasn't taken the cultural poison, the economics of the situation, force them to follow the program regardless.
So it doesn't matter if many women in their heart of hearts don't wish for this, their hand is forced out of pure self interest and a wish for self preservation.



> Honestly, I don't think that many women today want to be a housewife with a husband who provides for them! Everyone with a bit of common sense will understand that this is impossible for most people because wages are too low anyway. But of course, those women who want to work outside the house and earn money expect their husband/partner to do household chores and taking care of the children too! Which is understandable, I hope. I mean, the "old model" was: breadwinner working outside the house and wife doing the work in the house (cooking, cleaning, planning, raising children, ...). This worked more or less ("more or less" because not all people were happy with that).
> Now that this isn't possible anymore (because of low wages, basically), we have to find another share of work, e.g. both partners doing the same amout outside the house (paid work/bread winning) _and_ in the house (household chores and childcaring)! Of course every couple has to look how _they_ wanna share work between them, but I am _sick_ of men expecting women to earn their own money, do 90% of the unpaid work and probably look as if they stayed 25 forever! (not saying you are that kind of guy, I don't know you, but as I said, I have had bad experiences too^^)


Since you keep pointing out that you have had bad experiences too, I'm sorry to hear that.
Yet to focus on how one would micromanage the problem doesn't really solve anything, to put two people in such a situation under the same roof,
forces the outcome of whatever percentage the divorce rate is at the moment.
So what is left to do as a solution seem to be that one work ones ass off to elevate oneself economically over the threshold where most of the frictions happen.
But due to the cultural indoctrination and double standards it preaches, it doesn't matter, if you look at the rich, their marriages doesn't work either.
So it is clearly not as simple as only low wages, though low wages certainly is a stressor that will make the misery of the situation more intense.



> Oh and don't believe everything that Freud and Jung say about women - they were men, so they didn't really have a clue to start with, and they lived 100 years ago. Things have changed. People and society have changed. And as human beings, they were influenced by the ideas of their time (like: women being weaker, less intelligent, ...). It is almost impossible to say anything about human "nature" (because we will never know how much of our behaviour is "nurture" and not "nature"). If you don't believe me: think about all those people saying that monogamy is against nature - that might even be true, but should we let that dominate how we live? No: we are still free to make choices - e.g. to not cheat on a partner, even if we have the impulse to do it because we feel attracted to someone else.


Please read my statement of Freud and Jung again, you are taking it out of context.
It was theory on how my libido attaches, not on how they viewed women.



> So, once again: don't give up hope, think about what relationship you would like (not what society expects from men or women) and find a partner who has similiar ideas. Oh, and I've heard that in a relationship one needs to compromise from time to time, too, just as a side note... Refrain from sexist bullshit like incels, "red/blue pill" stuff and (mainstream) porn, this will only worsen your image of women and lessen your chances of finding a partner!
> 
> Hope this helps!


Well it was a new piece of advice, which makes for a new entry in my list, thank you for your contribution.
Feel free to follow up on any of the rabbitholes or cans of worms this topic opens up if you think you have anything more to say about it.

*Advice list:*
1. You live in a individualist society, shut up and follow the program!
2. Don't give up hope, some way, somehow, you will get what you want!


----------



## Lady of Redstones (Apr 28, 2021)

Thank you for appreciating my answer ;-)



Inveniet said:


> Please read my statement of Freud and Jung again, you are taking it out of context.
> It was theory on how my libido attaches, not on how they viewed women.


Ok, I have to admit that I actually didn't understand that/read your op carefully enough - sorry bout that!

And I actually think I could contribute more, now that you've talked about attachment theory - I didn't read Freud or Jung so I have no idea what they write, but I read some "modern day" stuff about attachment theory, which might be built on the work of those pioneers, but once again: no idea! (It was mostly stuff online.)
So I have an issue with that too: I found out some time ago that I always fell for similiar types of guys aka "always fell for the wrong guy". I realized that reflecting on past "relationships" (they never lasted long), about what I long(ed) for and what I got instead. So it turned out that I had always wished to get the love and affection that my parents couldn't give/show me (yeah, dysfunctional family, also slightly abusive), but instead my ex-boyfriends had treated me in a _very_ similiar way to how my parents/my mom did (yes, although I am female and usually attracted to males, they resembled my mom a lot!)... In the beginning this frustrated me a lot, because I didn't know at all how to change that/fall for someone who treats me right and is compatible with me, like "but it's impossible to change my feelings, they are juste _there_, yada yada yada". 
Well, that was some years ago, and although I haven't yet found the right partner, things are slowly changing... I am seeing a therapist (for several reason), and she thinks that, instead of always falling for the same kind of wrong guy, every time I fall for someone he is _a bit less wrong/incompatible_ - not that it didn't help much (coz still not the right guy after all), but she helped me to shift my perspective - from "I'm desperate and think I'll never make it" to "Okay, I'm doing a bit better every time, so one day I might actually make it".
She also encouraged me to communicate more what I want, to ask more questions to know earlier whether someone was compatible or not - this might lead to less matches/actual dates, but it's also saving a lot of time I would waste with the wrong people (and I'm glad I don't waste my time like this anymore!).
So, the real advice would be: KNOW WHAT YOU WANT EXACTLY; SO YOU CAN GO FOR IT IN A MORE EFFICIENT WAY. 

That all came up in my head, I think because you mentioned attachment theory/ I associated that with you pointing out that you read about libido in Freud's and Jung's work - iirc, you also mentioned that you easily attract women who are into having sex with you but don't consider you "relationship material"? 
Now I don't believe in a "law of attraction" in the spiritual sense, but I am convinced that how we behave (subconsciously) and maybe even how we see ourselves (which leads in turn to a certain behaviour/how we show up) is giving other people a certain impression (once again, most of it is unconscious), so it influences what kind of people we "attract" (who wants to be friends with me? who wants to have sex with me? who considers me "relationship material"?) - and with a bit of reflection (which you seem to have^^) I think we can change that and therefore whom we attract 
As far as I know, there are also special short-term therapies (at least in central Europe) that aim at changing your attachment style/what kind of types you fall for... I don't trust them because I am sceptical about short-time therapies that wanna solve your problem in 10 hours/weeks in general, but I think that it is certainly possible on the long run




Inveniet said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure what to make of this, as it isn't just my experience that shows this, but the collective experience of many many people.
> Else we wouldn't have blue, red and black pill movements popping up all over the place as a reaction.
> If it was just me, then I would just be a heartbroken fool that luck have given a poor hand.
> But as you just fleshed out in your opening paragraph, there are real reasons for this that go beyond my power to rectify,
> ...


Well, I don't wanna get into a discussion about the red (or blue/black) pill stuff - once again I have to admit that I don't know a lot about that, probably read about it once, but to _really_ have a serious discussion on the topic I would need to do a lot of research (which I don't want to spend my time on right now). And then, you said that you didn't like to be seen as "red pillish", so ... no fixation on that ;-)
But as far as I know, those are movements on the internet, where people with similiar experiences meet and confirm their shared opinion and experience to each other - so you have very few - if any - people who have totally different experiences. What I would advise you (if you want to find a relationship and start a family) is to get to know/talk to men who are in a good relationship, who aren't divorced (yet...), who seem to have found the right partner. How did they get to know each other? How is their day-to-day life? How do they share paid and unpaid work? What qualities do those women have, who stay with those men and are happy...? Of course, everyone has different ideas about what a good relationship is, but this might 1st confirm to you that there might still be women out there who want to have the relationship you want, and 2nd where and how to find them ;-)
This somehow works for me too: to look at couples I'm friends with, to think about why they are happy together, how they found the right person/built a relationship, ... And, as I said before: knowing yourself! What MBTI types/functions do get on your nerves, which ones do you appreciate in friends, do you prefer people who have a lot in common with you, or just the opposite... stuff like that ;-)

Good luck!


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

You remind me of an ex boyfriend of mine who was also ISFP. He listened to Dio way too much 🤣. The only reason I even made that silly reference was because he’d attach a bunch of shit that didn’t really exist into his own narrative while being in my opinion the most critical person I’ve ever seen of other people in such a self righteous form while being such a shitty human in how he chose to measure everyone and then justify this in the way he treated them. 

Now I’m not saying that’s you. 

I’m saying I instantly started to read what ya wrote. And was first thinking ok. Then I waited for an example to support the narrative (it never came). That was the part I meant about how it reminded me of him. Was because he’d come to this leaping conclusions but jump from the vision ideal and expectation he had, then suddenly leap into his defined meanings of how the person or people were whatever. And yet he skipped the part where he ever was even able to reasonably explain what I call a key piece in a story. The actual middle. You tell us a premise. Then you say your conclusion. 

Honestly sometimes tert Ni scares the shit outta me. As much as it’s a pain in the ass for me in fourth. I’m so fricken glad it’s not in third. When I look at some ISxPs. I mean I’m all for conspiracy. But tert Ni takes this shit to another level. Especially Fi/Ni. 

I’m not trying to be critical of you personally and personality wise. I don’t know you. That’s why I kept it to using examples and functions. And putting into context how you write your narrative. So maybe you consider you skip a very key piece. Assessment of the middle.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Side note tho well I’ll share a bit about that boyfriend because who knows maybe an inadvertent experience unrelated direct to you could help.

I really cared sincerely about this ISFP. Until he went out of his way to test me. Psychologically. 

Which you make mention of yourself. 

I remember when he put me on blast with a character analysis and let me be clear it was holding stuff against me I never really hid and he chose to overlook until it was important to throw in my face to justify his actions in writing me off. But rather than be a man about it. Instead had to hunt for and create reasons and a narrative to emotionally gaslight me, measure me and tell me why I didn’t measure to his ideals. 


In his case he used slut shaming. This was a lead guitarist who’d been laid plenty. Suddenly interrogating me months into our relationship about the number of partners I’d had previous. Um Wtf. I remember looking him dead in the eye and saying you don’t fool me. If you want out then stop being a pussy instead of making this about me and my character when you measure me for the same thing you’re guilty of. I remember saying to him he was a coward for holding me emotionally accountable to bare any burden for his emotional landscape. I remember telling him he was the most self righteous person I ever encountered to think for a second that he was justified in measuring anyone morally with the way he treated people. I told him I could see thru him he was the true ugly person and I walked out and I never looked back. 

So make sure you’re the human you want others to be before holding them accountable for failing your expectations and narrative.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Lady of Redstones said:


> Ok, I have to admit that I actually didn't understand that/read your op carefully enough - sorry bout that!


It is okay, it is very common, everyone does it to some extent.



> And I actually think I could contribute more, now that you've talked about attachment theory - I didn't read Freud or Jung so I have no idea what they write, but I read some "modern day" stuff about attachment theory, which might be built on the work of those pioneers, but once again: no idea! (It was mostly stuff online.)


There are some key differences, but they do talk about the same problem from different points of view.
Attachment theory does not entertain libido or complexes, it is just an instinctive mechanism that does not require psychic energy to be locked up for its maintenance.
It springs out from a completely different philosophical worldview.



> So I have an issue with that too: I found out some time ago that I always fell for similiar types of guys aka "always fell for the wrong guy". I realized that reflecting on past "relationships" (they never lasted long), about what I long(ed) for and what I got instead. So it turned out that I had always wished to get the love and affection that my parents couldn't give/show me (yeah, dysfunctional family, also slightly abusive), but instead my ex-boyfriends had treated me in a _very_ similiar way to how my parents/my mom did (yes, although I am female and usually attracted to males, they resembled my mom a lot!)... In the beginning this frustrated me a lot, because I didn't know at all how to change that/fall for someone who treats me right and is compatible with me, like "but it's impossible to change my feelings, they are juste _there_, yada yada yada".
> Well, that was some years ago, and although I haven't yet found the right partner, things are slowly changing... I am seeing a therapist (for several reason), and she thinks that, instead of always falling for the same kind of wrong guy, every time I fall for someone he is _a bit less wrong/incompatible_ - not that it didn't help much (coz still not the right guy after all), but she helped me to shift my perspective - from "I'm desperate and think I'll never make it" to "Okay, I'm doing a bit better every time, so one day I might actually make it".
> She also encouraged me to communicate more what I want, to ask more questions to know earlier whether someone was compatible or not - this might lead to less matches/actual dates, but it's also saving a lot of time I would waste with the wrong people (and I'm glad I don't waste my time like this anymore!).


A projected mother complex huh?
Yeah that is pretty common, trying to fix parental issues in the partner.
Falling for the wrong guy, I guess you are talking about wrong in the sense of acting out similar abuse patterns that you experienced in childhood.
Which isn't really what I was focusing on in my OP in terms of the kind of match I had lost faith in, but is certainly relevant in your personal history.
So it seems to me that you have learned to screen people in terms of that type of behavioral pattern.
Which is a good thing, if it means you don't have to put up with subpar situations in the future!
It doesn't really solve the other issues discussed in this thread, but it is similar to what I talk about when I mentioned working on lowering my own suffering.
Cause I too have been much stricter in what kind of women I let into my intimate sphere, altough from a very different perspective, namely Socionics.
But that is another can of worms than you acting out your mother complex in successive relationships unconsciously hoping for a resolution.

I too have a mother complex, and I've managed to curb its influence somewhat, but I'm far from done with it.
The trouble is that since society is the way it is, it was hard for me to tell where my hangup ends and societys start.
Took me a long time to see beyond my own bubble of Donjuanism.
Which isn't really about bedding women, that is beside the point in a psychological sense.
It is all about attaching to and glorifying the attraction and connection to that person, which sex is sort of the culimination of.
Then when the next girl comes by, the process is restarted with her regardless of the progress or lack thereof with the previous attachment.
I actually made myself a folder of pictures of all the attachments I had connected myself to over the years. (That I could find anyway)
That was a lot of faces, and they all meant something to me because they linked to the same complex of meaning inside my psyche.
They where in essence the same woman with different faces, their real identity and personality took the backseat.



> So, the real advice would be: KNOW WHAT YOU WANT EXACTLY; SO YOU CAN GO FOR IT IN A MORE EFFICIENT WAY.


A rephrase of the advice, not content with my interpretation are we?
That is fine and good, I will still keep the original advice, because it is such a common sentiment to come across.



> That all came up in my head, I think because you mentioned attachment theory/ I associated that with you pointing out that you read about libido in Freud's and Jung's work - iirc, you also mentioned that you easily attract women who are into having sex with you but don't consider you "relationship material"?


Yeah as I said mother complex.



> Now I don't believe in a "law of attraction" in the spiritual sense, but I am convinced that how we behave (subconsciously) and maybe even how we see ourselves (which leads in turn to a certain behaviour/how we show up) is giving other people a certain impression (once again, most of it is unconscious), so it influences what kind of people we "attract" (who wants to be friends with me? who wants to have sex with me? who considers me "relationship material"?) - and with a bit of reflection (which you seem to have^^) I think we can change that and therefore whom we attract
> As far as I know, there are also special short-term therapies (at least in central Europe) that aim at changing your attachment style/what kind of types you fall for... I don't trust them because I am sceptical about short-time therapies that wanna solve your problem in 10 hours/weeks in general, but I think that it is certainly possible on the long run


The kind of mother complex I have is the one where I never felt understood by my mother, so I try to get that lost understanding from every attractive woman I encounter.
Though if my mother actually understood me, I might have ended up gay, which doesn't seem very helpful...
Waiting for the influx of gay people to protest that Jungian sentiment, that their mothers being too understanding is the primary reason for becoming gay, hehe 



> Well, I don't wanna get into a discussion about the red (or blue/black) pill stuff - once again I have to admit that I don't know a lot about that, probably read about it once, but to _really_ have a serious discussion on the topic I would need to do a lot of research (which I don't want to spend my time on right now). And then, you said that you didn't like to be seen as "red pillish", so ... no fixation on that ;-)


Sure I just like to understand that stuff, so that if people accuse me of being it, I can rip them to shreds with proof that I do not hold those views.



> But as far as I know, those are movements on the internet, where people with similiar experiences meet and confirm their shared opinion and experience to each other - so you have very few - if any - people who have totally different experiences.


Mmm well I think it is a much bigger phenomenon, and that it will probably shape our society permanently in the years to come, to an unrecognizably cold place.
Japan is more or less a good example of where we are headed, where you can buy a girlfriend or a mother for an evening (no sex), and where people marry anime figures.
While real relationships are on a fast decline.



> What I would advise you (if you want to find a relationship and start a family) is to get to know/talk to men who are in a good relationship, who aren't divorced (yet...), who seem to have found the right partner. How did they get to know each other? How is their day-to-day life? How do they share paid and unpaid work? What qualities do those women have, who stay with those men and are happy...? Of course, everyone has different ideas about what a good relationship is, but this might 1st confirm to you that there might still be women out there who want to have the relationship you want, and 2nd where and how to find them ;-)


I've watched countless couples that claimed they where in good relationships, crash and burn a while later.
The ones that last seem to be the ones where the male has a lot of economic power, and also have a dominant I won't take any shit from my woman.
They move somewhere far away from the city and all the toxic friends of the female, so she can't continue her socially dysfunctional patterns, if she has any.
That sorta seems to work I guess, from my observation of the people I've encountered.
Though I may be wrong, it isn't like I've followed up on all the people I've seen do that, to collect their status over time.
For all I know, most of them divorced their man and went back to the city with its alluring lifestyle.



> This somehow works for me too: to look at couples I'm friends with, to think about why they are happy together, how they found the right person/built a relationship, ...


I honestly can't even conceive how I would make starting with the relationship in mind first in todays world.
The system is rigged against me in that respect, and trying to emulate good relationship practices from the getgo with difficult and picky women, can and will only backfire.
There would be no result at all, and I would basically be just another simp on a dating app with no likes from anyone other than woman past 40 who would love the company of such a gentleman.
Trust me, I've tried to have decent and well thought out profiles that highlight all the ways I would treat a woman right, and the only ones who cares are lonely catwomen, 
because they realize that all that is left for them is good company, and my offering seems like a very good deal.

Most younger women will live in denial righ up to the end, and tell themselves that there is still time and that they are just going to throw themselves into the arms of someone who only want sex.
And then magically they will heal his mother complex, by being the understanding mother he never had, and they will be happy ever after.
Sadly most very attractive women today are self centered narcissits, and couldn't understand anyone if they even tried.
This is because their dopamine reward system has been jacked up from all the compliments they have gotten from age 13-25.
They live on a cloud of approval from men and don't realize the reality of their situation.
In the meantime, their heart have become black as tar from all the messed up relationships and breakups they have had.
So when they finally intend to settle down, less men are interested, because their looks have faded, and even the ones that think they look attactive,
can't get over how awful a person they have become from their entitled and emotionally broken life.

I realize that I'm coming of quite negative here, but this is how things seem to me right now.
And this isn't all women by far, but it is a big portion of them, big enough to make 50% of female encounters a big red relationship flag,
and the rest are a sort of spectrum from tons of yellow flags, to the unicorns with green flags that all men fight tooth and nail over.
The fabled wife-material girl...



> And, as I said before: knowing yourself! What MBTI types/functions do get on your nerves, which ones do you appreciate in friends, do you prefer people who have a lot in common with you, or just the opposite... stuff like that ;-)


Yeah I got Jungian psychology and typology down pat, 
on any other site than this, 
I could easily make the claim that you would probably never come across a more knowledgable person than me on the subject.

And that is part of my idealism struggle, because since I know typlogy so well, I know most of the relationship issues with the types well.
I know what I will put up with and not, problem is, the field of wife-material girls are already super thin.
Add the requirement of actual typologic compatibility and you are left with basically NONE and ZERO!

This is not a problem you will experience as a female, you have tons of guys to chose from, and many of them are REALLY great guys.
If you get over your own hangups the dating world is yours for the picking.

As a man it is different, from a relationship standpoint, the male marriage class have a BROKEN META, to borrow a gamer term.
The class is nerfed into uselessness, and are only played by noobs that doesn't know any better.

This was a lot, and judging from your good luck statement, I don't blame you if you have had enough!

*Advice list:*
1. You live in a individualist society, shut up and follow the program!
2. Don't give up hope, some way, somehow, you will get what you want! 
3. Know what you want and go for it in the best way possible!


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Sensational said:


> You remind me of an ex boyfriend of mine who was also ISFP. He listened to Dio way too much 🤣. The only reason I even made that silly reference was because he’d attach a bunch of shit that didn’t really exist into his own narrative while being in my opinion the most critical person I’ve ever seen of other people in such a self righteous form while being such a shitty human in how he chose to measure everyone and then justify this in the way he treated them.
> 
> Now I’m not saying that’s you.
> 
> ...


Ah okay, well yeah, I process information that way I guess, won't lie... 
But if I didn't try to deal with the world on my terms where would I be?
I can accept that I don't see some things that other types see all that clearly, when I've dealt with ESTPs after the fact of knowing about the supervisor thing,
I've realized that they do understand a lot of stuff I don't, it is just very hard to see past my gut reaction to lack of Fi.



Sensational said:


> Side note tho well I’ll share a bit about that boyfriend because who knows maybe an inadvertent experience unrelated direct to you could help.
> 
> I really cared sincerely about this ISFP. Until he went out of his way to test me. Psychologically.
> 
> ...


The problem with Fi is that it is subjective, so there can be all sorts of moral content in there,
I don't really have a problem with girls being sexually promiscious in and off itself personally.
I do however see that such a lifestyle often leads to taking poor mental health choices and ending up hurting ones heart more often than not.
But this is hardly a problem just for females, men experience this too, they are just in denial, 
thinking that having a lot of sperm to pass around, somehow makes them emotionally immune.

The problem with your ex is obviously from a Socionic standpoint the whole supervisor thing.
You can never measure up to the Fi of the ISFP, and because of this everything you try to do, will be held up to the lens of not good enough.
I experience the same problem with ENFPs with my tert Ni, being held up to the standards of dominant Ne.
There is no way that will be enough for the ENFP and it can only go down hill from there.

To connect this up to the topic in this thread, when I meet ENFPs in dating, I RUN, I litterally RUN!


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

Inveniet said:


> I have no plan to invite any of these fellow humans into my life in the traditional way though.
> Generally they are too occupied with playing very simple and predictable games with me.
> When their games fail on me, they become interested, but it is an interest that is destructive,
> their focus is on breaking me, winning my heart so they can crush it.
> It becomes a game of capture the flag, where they have already torn their own flag to shreds and only care about the same fate for my flag.


You say that as if you resent it?


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Inveniet said:


> Ah okay, well yeah, I process information that way I guess, won't lie...
> But if I didn't try to deal with the world on my terms where would I be?
> I can accept that I don't see some things that other types see all that clearly, when I've dealt with ESTPs after the fact of knowing about the supervisor thing,
> I've realized that they do understand a lot of stuff I don't, it is just very hard to see past my gut reaction to lack of Fi.
> ...


Well you sound pretty self aware 

I’m not going to advise ya on ENFPs 🤣
My ex husbands one lol

We were like 💥


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Six said:


> You say that as if you resent it?


Yeah well it isn't very fun knowing that the only reason someone likes you is because you are something they can destroy.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

Inveniet said:


> Yeah well it isn't very fun knowing that the only reason someone likes you is because you are something they can destroy.












It can be very amusing as long as they're constantly failing at it, surely?

I don't know if that constitutes advice...


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Inveniet said:


> Yesterday I was a bit depressed, it was a depression that was long overdue.
> I basically had an ENTJ/LIE girl prove to me a ISFP/ESI guy that the whole notion of duality in Socionics are easily trumped by cultural forces.
> I hadn't fallen for her, given my heart or anything,
> her behavior was just a final nail in the coffin of the idea of duality being something "magic" that trump everything.
> ...


All I got from this is a long rambling explanation for why you're jaded about more traditional relationships is you're jaded about more traditional relationships. 

Have you considered swinging?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Six said:


> It can be very amusing as long as they're constantly failing at it, surely?
> 
> I don't know if that constitutes advice...


Well if they only failed that would be swell, but the kicker is that sure often they fail.
But many people getting close enough to try have archetypal and attitudinal patterns that can trigger possession in me.
Which means that even if I mean to act properly I don't and end up failing to protect myself.
That is not something one can predict happening, and the more sure one is of it not happening, the bigger the peril is of it going wrong.

It is like dismissing an attempt on your life because the assassin failed, and noting how amusing it was to watch,
and seeking out assassins with a bounty on your head to see if they also will fail.
One day you might find yourself very dead, because not all assassins are so unskilled as the first one,
and the more assassins you see fail, the more you let your guard down, so even not so skilled ones get a chance.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

tanstaafl28 said:


> All I got from this is a long rambling explanation for why you're jaded about more traditional relationships.
> 
> Have you considered swinging?


Since you are an ENTP, I will forgive you for what I would ordinarily view as an insult.
I know you mean well in your own twisted way.

I met a german girl in Spain that was into polyamory or whatever it is called.
That stuff freaked me out, so I'm pretty sure swinging wouldn't work all that well.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

To udate the list of advice! Thanks @tanstaafl28 and @Six 

*Advice list:*
1. You live in a individualist society, shut up and follow the program!
2. Don't give up hope, some way, somehow, you will get what you want!
3. Know what you want and go for it in the best way possible!
4. Amuse yourself with the current state of things and game the people you come across to the max!
5. Try out alternate relationship combos!


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

Inveniet said:


> Well if they only failed that would be swell, but the kicker is that sure often they fail.
> But many people getting close enough to try have archetypal and attitudinal patterns that can trigger possession in me.
> Which means that even if I mean to act properly I don't and end up failing to protect myself.
> That is not something one can predict happening, and the more sure one is of it not happening, the bigger the peril is of it going wrong.
> ...


Apologies, not trying to derail... Interesting thread! The last part of this post reminded me of this song for some reason...


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

Inveniet said:


> But many people getting close enough to try have archetypal and attitudinal patterns that can trigger possession in me.


You know what's great about despair?

It really makes you choose whether you're going to cut off some grangrenous limb or let it infect your whole body.

You still have hopes of holding onto that limb at the moment.

What is this thing:



Inveniet said:


> That was a lot of faces, and they all meant something to me because they linked to the same complex of meaning inside my psyche.They where in essence the same woman with different faces, their real identity and personality took the backseat.


Why isn't it worth cutting it off?

You'd be amazed how more adaptable, versatile and masterful you become once you leave something behind you know...


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Inveniet said:


> Since you are an ENTP, I will forgive you for what I would ordinarily view as an insult.
> I know you mean well in your own twisted way.
> 
> I met a german girl in Spain that was into polyamory or whatever it is called.
> That stuff freaked me out, so I'm pretty sure swinging wouldn't work all that well.


I suppose there was a bit of my twisted sense of humor involved in that comment. I'm not sure I could split my attention in more than one partner at a time. 

As for swinging, I just don't like to feel passed around like a hot potato either.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

How about following the Rolling Stones:


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

@Inveniet 

Because you almost put your finger on one part of the whole circular issue:

What do you actually know about the internals of a girl who is wife material?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ENIGMA2019 said:


> Apologies, not trying to derail... Interesting thread! The last part of this post reminded me of this song for some reason...


I just listened to it with lyric text, it was very fitting to this thread yes!



Six said:


> You know what's great about despair?
> 
> It really makes you choose whether you're going to cut off some grangrenous limb or let it infect your whole body.
> 
> ...


Cutting off the mother complex with the anima attached, do tell how I'm to implement this feat of psychological magic.
Cause the way you are referring to it, makes it seem like a simple choice.



tanstaafl28 said:


> I suppose there was a bit of my twisted sense of humor involved in that comment. I'm not sure I could split my attention in more than one partner at a time.
> 
> As for swinging, I just don't like to feel passed around like a hot potato either.


Hehe, I love how you are suggesting things you would never really bother to do yourself!


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

tanstaafl28 said:


> How about following the Rolling Stones:


Fair enough!

*Advice list:*
1. You live in a individualist society, shut up and follow the program!
2. Don't give up hope, some way, somehow, you will get what you want!
3. Know what you want and go for it in the best way possible!
4. Amuse yourself with the current state of things and game the people you come across to the max!
5. Try out alternate relationship combos! 
6. Accept that you won't get what you want and settle for what is available!


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Six said:


> @Inveniet
> 
> Because you almost put your finger on one part of the whole circular issue:
> 
> What do you actually know about the internals of a girl who is wife material?


Well that is a very good question.
One that I can answer, and with all the knowledge I think I have, and I won't really know if I'm missing something, because I'm not aware of it.
It is getting to late to in ernest attack that problem, but I will revisit it later when I have time for it.


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

tanstaafl28 said:


> How about following the Rolling Stones:


Not a good one for this thread. He sounds like (just assumption from the thread) something along these line. _shrugs_


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

But, he is getting this


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

Inveniet said:


> Hehe, I love how you are suggesting things you would never really bother to do yourself!


That's what I love about his posts...open minded and trying to give suggestions that may work for others but, not for himself. I relate.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ENIGMA2019 said:


> That's what I love about his posts...open minded and trying to give suggestions that may work for others but, not for himself. I relate.


Yeah only trouble is that ENTPs are my conflictors, so I have to carefully decode what they say and give the benefit of the doubt to what they say.
While not having any guarantees that the favor will be returned in kind, long term it is a disaster, short term it can be fruitful.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Inveniet said:


> Yeah only trouble is that ENTPs are my conflictors, so I have to carefully decode what they say and give the benefit of the doubt to what they say.
> While not having any guarantees that the favor will be returned in kind, long term it is a disaster, short term it can be fruitful.


I thought we were pretty much everyone's conflictors. Ultimate sophists and merry pranksters? I may be curious, witty, and mischievous, but I am never intentionally cruel. 

You've asked us what we think and you've determined that our thoughts are not going to work for your particular situation for one reason or another. That's fine. At least you know you have options. 

What do you want to do about your situation? Have you drawn any conclusions since you wrote your OP?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

This entire thread gives me a headache since the perspectives abrogate agency for no perceivable reason. Monogamists make monogamy work for them. Non-monogamists often try to become monogamists but usually fail, hence cheating or attempting to blame society for 'forcing' them into monogamy when really, it was about their choices in life. 

Everyone has agency, relative to dating and mating. But with agency, there's also responsibility. Shit happens. This doesn't mean that people can have whatever they want since that's not possible for most. Deal with it.


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

Good post.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

mia-me said:


> This entire thread gives me a headache since the perspectives abrogate agency for no perceivable reason. Monogamists make monogamy work for them. Non-monogamists often try to become monogamists but usually fail, hence cheating or attempting to blame society for 'forcing' them into monogamy when really, it was about their choices in life.
> 
> Everyone has agency, relative to dating and mating. But with agency, there's also responsibility. Shit happens. This doesn't mean that people can have whatever they want since that's not possible for most. Deal with it.











(I know you have pics disabled, she’s dropping the mic)


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I thought we were pretty much everyone's conflictors. Ultimate sophists and merry pranksters? I may be curious, witty, and mischievous, but I am never intentionally cruel.
> 
> You've asked us what we think and you've determined that our thoughts are not going to work for your particular situation for one reason or another. That's fine. At least you know you have options.
> 
> What do you want to do about your situation? Have you drawn any conclusions since you wrote your OP?


Yeah but it is a difference between being actual conflictor in socionics and a mere soical devils advocate.

I know I've been somewhat dismissive of many ideas, I'm slow to move and change my ways.

I have drawn many conclusions, but I won't post them here, I have some plans I want to implement that I think will be good, won't post those either.
Cause now the NFs have arrived in force, they are pissed and want to attack any hole they can find in my armor.



mia-me said:


> This entire thread gives me a headache since the perspectives abrogate agency for no perceivable reason. Monogamists make monogamy work for them. Non-monogamists often try to become monogamists but usually fail, hence cheating or attempting to blame society for 'forcing' them into monogamy when really, it was about their choices in life.
> 
> Everyone has agency, relative to dating and mating. But with agency, there's also responsibility. Shit happens. This doesn't mean that people can have whatever they want since that's not possible for most. Deal with it.


I see you are back, even brought a friend to back you up with funny gifs.

If you don't like the way I process information...get in line, that is behind @Sensational btw, she was first! 

As for the rest, I can't really translate it, because between the lines it screams, I hate you and want to see you suffer!
I'm not in the mood for extending olive branches to toes I've stepped on right now, so I will just block you and your friend for the time being.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

Inveniet said:


> As for the rest, I can't really translate it, because between the lines it screams, I hate you and want to see you suffer!
> I'm not in the mood for extending olive branches to toes I've stepped on right now, so I will just block you and your friend for the time being.


Chill.

That's how echo chambers form - let's not be as bad as them.

Even if I feel a rancid disgust towards her comment and the people who liked it - it's something you need to see.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Inveniet said:


> As for the rest, I can't really translate it, because between the lines it screams, I hate you and want to see you suffer!
> I'm not in the mood for extending olive branches to toes I've stepped on right now, so I will just block you and your friend for the time being.


For the record, I don't hate you and don't care about you. The problem is that I can't wrap my brain around the lack of agency and entitlement. But that's nothing new, relative to my perspective of red pill, MGTOW, etc.

Go out into the world and be the non-monogamist you want to be. No one cares what you do.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

Inveniet said:


> Well that is a very good question.
> One that I can answer, and with all the knowledge I think I have, and I won't really know if I'm missing something, because I'm not aware of it.
> It is getting to late to in ernest attack that problem, but I will revisit it later when I have time for it.


Sorry - I was going to do this later but you know I see a valuable spin we can put on this ball before it goes too wrong:

(Some of this is not stuff you're going to like - but it's a good pain):

You're going for this Bob Dylan-y sort of woman who looks at you and sees all your flaws and beams sunlight: Pure, unadulterated love and compassion at you, she says:

"Awww!"










She's in love with you, not in spite of your flaws - it's BECAUSE of your waifish, damaged, vulnerable authenticity - or whatever.

And you want to hold onto that.

It's what makes you you huh?

And don't get me wrong - a gimmick's present here which is effective.

(We can imagine this as Spock in Star Trek where he's "emotionally compromised")...






...or we can do a written example for those of you don't fancy being derailed by sci fi nonsense:

_I mean let's take the hilarious stereotype of the INTJ who's just UNABLE to process his emotions - right? AWWW. 

And now let's imagine his family just died in a car crash.

And he still turns up to work.

You know. Because the chassis of his effectiveness and having something narrow to focus on as he's just been handed a bathtub's worth of agony and pain with (ostensibly - and this is a lie) an emotional thimble's worth of cognitive emotional faculty to empty that bathtub with is just having him slide away from it, the pain.

And women see this hollow, empty demeanor which is autistically just trying to stay loyal to his nine-mile-stare, eagle-top, capable and unbreakable efficiency / effectiveness - SO CAPABLE - sweet smell of some softness and desperation - a lost, bewildered, terrified child twinkling in his irises..._

(_AND APPARENTLY IT'S A MYSTERY WOMEN DON'T KNOW WHY): KISSY KISSY KISSY I JUST WANT TO BABY HIM AND MAKE HIM FEEL BETTER.





_
Even hardcore, capable, insightful women fall for this shit...






However let's analyse this - not its effects on women - its effects on you - any thoughts?


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

ENFPathetic said:


> Calling you a kid is giving you the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is you're a grown man suffering from teenage delusions of grandeur.


Project harder


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Inveniet said:


> In the last few days, I've experimented a lot with certain assumptions, just to see if I can actually predict the outfall of certain actions.
> The result has been mostly as I thought, but with some surprising variations on the theme.
> Personally I notice that I have a lot of negativity built up towards situations that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt,
> that my previous stance was wrong, it becomes so bad that I can only obseve what is going on, but not really participate.
> I need to go through a major process of acceptance of certain things, before I'm ready to actually walk my new path.


Sounds like you're struggling trying to incorporate Te.
What do you think of Jung's description of the introverted rational type?
Specifically this part:


> Almost more even than the extraverted is the introverted type subject to misunderstanding: not so much because the extravert is a more merciless or critical adversary, than he himself can easily be, but because the style of the epoch in which he himself participates is against him. Not in relation to the extraverted type, but as against our general accidental world-philosophy, he finds himself in the minority, not of course numerically, but from the evidence of his own feeling. In so far as he is a convinced participator in the general style, he undermines his own foundations, since the present style, with its almost exclusive acknowledgment of the visible and the tangible, is opposed to his principle. Because of its invisibility, he is obliged to depreciate the subjective factor, and to force himself to join in the extraverted overvaluation of the object. He himself sets the subjective factor at too low a value, and his feelings of inferiority are his chastisement for this sin. Little wonder, therefore, that it is precisely our epoch, and particularly those movements which are somewhat ahead of the time, that reveal the subjective factor in every kind of exaggerated, crude and grotesque form of expression. I refer to the art of the present day.





> The undervaluation of his own principle makes the introvert egotistical, and forces upon him the psychology of the oppressed. The more egotistical he becomes, the stronger his impression grows that these others, who are apparently able, without qualms, to conform with the present style, are the oppressors against whom he must guard and [p. 498] protect himself. He does not usually perceive that he commits his capital mistake in not depending upon the subjective factor with that same loyalty and devotion with which the extravert follows the object By the undervaluation of his own principle, his penchant towards egoism becomes unavoidable, which, of course, richly deserves the prejudice of the extravert. *Were he only to remain true to his own principle, the judment of 'egoist' would be radically false; for the justification of his attitude would be established by its general efficacy, and all misunderstandings dissipated.*


Jung lowkey calls you out here, but he also offers a solution which I've bolded. Note that Sygma's reactions to your posts can be seen as the "richly deserved prejudice of the extravert", which they're making complete use of, since they are given the platform to, by the simple fact that you're undervaluing your own principle and playing the extraverted game.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Fru2 said:


> Sounds like you're struggling trying to incorporate Te.
> What do you think of Jung's description of the introverted rational type?
> Specifically this part:


Hmm been a long time since I've read that passage, but I do remember it.
I'm not sure if I think of it as struggling with Te, but that may be because I have a better grasp of it than any other time in my life.
Yet sure, compared to a Te dominant, I'm struggling with Te.

That passage reminds me of conversations with an ENTJ I know, and how I'm constantly trying to prove him and his narrowminded statements wrong.
He has this very superficial stance that doesn't allow for any inner freedom, just an outer tyrany of sorts.



> Jung lowkey calls you out here, but he also offers a solution which I've bolded. Note that Sygma's reactions to your posts can be seen as the "richly deserved prejudice of the extravert", which they're making complete use of, since they are given the platform to, by the simple fact that you're undervaluing your own principle and playing the extraverted game.


In terms of my work, I'm playing up my own principle a lot, making it work out nicely for me.
Yet in terms of this whole problem, I can't really say how it would help me out all that much?
Fi is expressed through Se, and my experiements are in Se reality, but if I don't draw in Ni and Te I'm more or less without a chance.
I've lived a life though Fi and Se in this area, I've tried more than I'm willing to share, mostly because it will not be believed.
The only thing that is left at this point is to integrate a higher view and bring in and struggle with Te.

I'm glad I'm doing that, because I have started to notice how everyone around me has been goading me on,
trapping me because I've been too caught up in my little happy go lucky bubble.
Since the societaly frames Te and the societal norms Fe are so fucked up in combination, unless I deal with it actively I have no chance at all.

Sure, I can see the egotism thing, and the feelings of oppression, but these are real phenomena, not stuff that just vaporizes into mist, if I just ignore it.
I wouldn't say that I'm undervaluing my own principle, I feel I've been able to live it out quite well.
However I still lack the wholeness, and I got to be a bit more smart about things at certain junctures.
To experiment with stuff and try to learn is good, even if it can be somewhat stressful to try to deal with unfamiliar stuff.

Part of my problem is that I've had other type blindside me because I was in my little bubble, trated me like shit and really fucked me over.
I can't afford to let my guard down, unless I wan't to be left on the side of the street with a cup begging.
It is easy to point to such fancy little statements by Jung and say that you should just value your own principle more,
and sure that is part of the answer, but it isn't the whole answer. I need to work on Te and Ni also.

Question for me becomes, what would even following my own principle look like in terms of this problem.
That is surely an interesting question! One I don't have a good answer to right away.
Some stuff comes to mind, but much of it seems to fly in the face of my latest discoveries.
There is a natural tension, because what Fi wants and what it can have is often quite different.
Though there are certainly space to play around with in many situations, space that wouldn't be utilized otherwise.
Though if I hadn't worked on and struggled with my Te, I wouldn't even be in the position to recognize that space.
Much less have the power and agency to access it.

So yeah, it is with a conflicted heart I respond to you, as in reality, it isn't very stright forward, but rather a whole mess of stuff.

*Advice list:*
1. You live in a individualist society, shut up and follow the program!
2. Don't give up hope, some way, somehow, you will get what you want!
3. Know what you want and go for it in the best way possible!
4. Amuse yourself with the current state of things and game the people you come across to the max!
5. Try out alternate relationship combos!
6. Accept that you won't get what you want and settle for what is available!
7. Fix everything with Magic!
8. Get what you want in a dream, meditation, out of body experience or acid trip!
9. Do brain surgery!
10. Have a childish attitude and expectation to the whole thing!
11. Find a likeminded peer group!
12. Stop having ideals, be aimless like a ship adrift and you cannot end up in the wrong place!
13. Be confident!
14. Don't date users!
15. Don't love anyone too soon!
16. Have and display drive and purpose!
17. Be more picky about who you acknowledge!
18. Don't devalue yourself in conversation!
19. Make your lifestyle and ideals match!
20. Take comfort in that more people are in the same boat!
21. Follow your own principle!


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Sygma said:


> Project harder


"I'm rubber. You're glue!"

You have the verbal prowess of a toddler and the delusions of a Kanye. Jog on kid.


----------



## Sentimentality (Oct 9, 2020)

HAL said:


> I think the claim that previous generations had easier times of romance is incorrect.
> 
> Abusive relationships and the likes have existed forever, for example.
> 
> I think modern society has more of a throwaway culture, which can make romance harder in various ways because people will jump ship if they don't get their idea of perfection, but also it makes people more willing to 'throw away' a bad relationship too, so there's a kind of balance in there somewhere, in that things are not overall worse, they're just different.


Fair enough, I should have said "easier to find relationships" not "easier to find love". I didn't intend to give the impression that past relationships were superior, just that social conventions made it clear the steps necessary to get into one. Today, it's more of a free-for-all.



Sygma said:


> Nah its just that the core concept of identity and individual desires pretty much has started taking grip a bit more everywhere, in the name of a more progressive and accepting society. People are for the most part being brainwashed, and the difficulty to find romance nowadays ties into simple concepts, which most men are clueless about while they keep displaying de facto unattractive behavior
> 
> Now for the retard saying I'm a kid or whatever, some people are blunt to a fault and I'm one of them. I do not have any issues with it IRL, quite the contrary actually since people do enjoy the fact that I do have nothing to hide and speak my mind as a rule.
> 
> ...


Ideological changes of the 21st century surely play a part as well, no disagreement there.

As for being "brainwashed", everyone has and always will be. It's part of the human experience to be a part of a collective and inevitably you become instilled with the values of that collective.

As for some men displaying "unattractive behavior", it's important to point out that not all of human experience is strictly biological. It also has a social side. As implied with the above statement that we are all brainwashed, the collective also instills within us a variety of values that define what we consider attractive in a mate. Although this may not overshadow some biologically ingrained attractions such as clear skin, symmetry, etc. it certainly can effect our interpretation of behavior. In other words, there is no completely eternal metric by which we can determine a behavior to be attractive or not. Thus, there's no reason to judge that the reason some men are having difficulty with romance is due to them not living up to some ultimately perfect standard of male behavior. Rather, it's the result of what has already been mentioned: Ideological, technological, and scientific changes that have transformed our social landscapes.

We tend to judge our own behaviors as virtuous because it protects our egos. Consider the opposite (Not intending to be offensive here): Maybe you just can't shut up even if you wanted to. So which is it? Are you cool because you speak your mind or are you just an idiot who can't keep their mouth shut? It's easy to see why we'd rather believe the first option, but how would we accurately judge anyways?

I haven't read the whole thread/conversation, but despite what the OP has said, it's more effective to have constructive dialogue than to throw fuel to the fire. Shaming the OP doesn't actually achieve anything worthwhile. But bringing cool levelheadedness benefits anyone who is willing to read the response. Based on the OP's response, I believe he respected the input.



Inveniet said:


> Yeah that is a good summary from a refreshing point of view.
> It is sort of obvious what you say, but in this day and age, the obvious is almost taboo.
> I'm with you on the fullfillingness of loving relations,
> if it wasn't fullfilling I certainly wouldn't waste my time griping over the trials of having a big perspective change.
> ...


We're both Enneagram 5's, so I can understand where this is coming from. It's easier to acquire data when being the observer rather than the participator, however life isn't just data acquisition and we can't always prepare, calculate, or even understand every situation or eventuality. The world is very complicated, much more so than the human mind can comprehend. Now this isn't to say we should abandon observation entirely, but because for Enneagram 5's it's the default position, it's important to receive input from the opposing views.

One important problem with the observer position is that it's heavily susceptible to the biases of the human mind, the biggest of which is confirmation bias. What you might consider an accurate prediction might actually be a inaccurate prediction with post-hoc rationalization to cover the ego loss from the inaccuracy. This of course is to say nothing about you personally, but keeping this thought in mind humbles oneself to the reality that we might not always be right. The best thing about this is that if you're humble, you wont be stuck in the negative thought patterns because not everything about reality has to conform to the logical framework that the mind expects.

Aside from that (and I'm just thinking out loud here at this point), it might be a good idea to carefully consider where this beforementioned "logical framework" and other thoughts came from. I heard someone mention "RedPill" which is a pervasive logical framework that has been introduced by the internet. I don't think it's difficult to see how the acceptance of such a framework would act as a pair of goggles within which every human interaction gets interpreted in. I don't think it's necessary to explain how that might be limiting or even harmful. However, if there's one thing I've taken from that ideology, it's this: "Observance of a system changes that system". In other words, I believe if you're aware of many of the pitfalls of modern dating/relationships, you're probably less likely to fall into them because you'll subconsciously avoid such things. No need to overcompensate and suffer by making that subconscious process conscious all the time. Surely you trust yourself of all people to make the right decisions yes?


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Inveniet said:


> Question for me becomes, what would even following my own principle look like in terms of this problem.
> That is surely an interesting question! One I don't have a good answer to right away.
> Some stuff comes to mind, but much of it seems to fly in the face of my latest discoveries.
> There is a natural tension, because what Fi wants and what it can have is often quite different.
> ...


Yes, Yes! You certainly have the instinct to pursue full individuation. You're aware of the transcendent function but are not sure yet how to fully equip it, but that is the whole meaning of life. The most bountiful paths are long, vague and untreaded. It's your own journey, to find out what following your own principles would look like, all I can say is that you have the capacity, but where does your will reside? 

Why complicate and try to fit everything into one piece while still holding on to so many details? As an ENTJ I wouldn't know how others see me except for one remark someone told me that stood out the most: "What I like about you is that you make everything so simple! You take all of these aspects, find the common denominators and find a simple solution to the task at hand".

I had no idea that this is what I do until then, but that is indeed what I constantly do. That is my way, the path on which I tread. If you wish to improve on your Te and Ni, seek simplicity. Only when reduced to its mere essence, can massive amounts of data be stored and an answer to everything that comes through your path be identified and thus problem be resolved. l let the problems come to me, and I deal with them. In fact, I wish there were more things I could deal with, more to be responsible for, because life drags on and on unless I jump into more rewarding tasks which I can take on. 

Your remarks are very profound, it gives a clear idea of where your head is at, a complete overview of what your stances are, but the problem I see is that there's so many observations in your text(which reflects your thinking) that you're kind of losing the forest for the trees. It's also very real in the sense that you're exposing yourself to criticism by laying out so many points which people could take advantage of.

Now my question is, where does the line between superficiality and simplicity reside?


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Fru2 said:


> That is my way, the path on which I tread. If you wish to improve on your Te and Ni, seek simplicity. Only when reduced to its mere essence, can massive amounts of data be stored and an answer to everything that comes through your path be identified and thus problem be resolved. l let the problems come to me, and I deal with them.


This is it man. And it makes a lot of sense that this is from Te+Ni. The older I get the more I consciously value simplicity in my life. I wanted to say this exact same thing to the OP, but couldn't find the words to say it in a simple manner. Furthermore, I've yet to meet a person with a complicated life who isn't miserable.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Sentimentality said:


> We're both Enneagram 5's, so I can understand where this is coming from. It's easier to acquire data when being the observer rather than the participator, however life isn't just data acquisition and we can't always prepare, calculate, or even understand every situation or eventuality. The world is very complicated, much more so than the human mind can comprehend. Now this isn't to say we should abandon observation entirely, but because for Enneagram 5's it's the default position, it's important to receive input from the opposing views.


Yeah sure, I get what you mean. What I'm doing is changing variables in situations where i "participate" anyway, and just say, wonder if I remove/add X.
I think the effect will be Y, and then Z happens.
Very simplified version, but it is just me trying to understand very standard situations, 
and if i can change the outcome of them by targeting variables that I theory/undertanding has deemed to be critical.
Sometimes I get unexpected results, which is when I learn the most, but I participate regardless.
In every situation I'm in, I have to take some sort of action, so I figured I'd try something new or and hopefully more effective stuff.
I don't want to spill the beans on what situations I'm in, but it connects very much to this topic.
In the absense of any real idealistic hope, I'm sort of lowkey gaming different situations, just to see what would happen IF...
Cause many people claim to know the answer to that and be experts, but they are just cycling through their prejudices, rather than sharing knowledge many times.
So I'd rather reality teach me a thing or two.



> One important problem with the observer position is that it's heavily susceptible to the biases of the human mind, the biggest of which is confirmation bias. What you might consider an accurate prediction might actually be a inaccurate prediction with post-hoc rationalization to cover the ego loss from the inaccuracy. This of course is to say nothing about you personally, but keeping this thought in mind humbles oneself to the reality that we might not always be right. The best thing about this is that if you're humble, you wont be stuck in the negative thought patterns because not everything about reality has to conform to the logical framework that the mind expects.


Sure how do you know that you know and all that.
I guess if I manage to find something that I can replicate, so I can always create the same result with the initial setup, would be the answer, sort of lowkey science.
Though I won't pretend to have the same disipline a scientist would have, I try to keep a similar mindset.
If I can't repeat it, I havn't really learned anything directly useful, though my understanding may have become deeper, 
so that eventually I may figure out a way because of the intuitive buildup of many layers of patterns.



> Aside from that (and I'm just thinking out loud here at this point), it might be a good idea to carefully consider where this beforementioned "logical framework" and other thoughts came from. I heard someone mention "RedPill" which is a pervasive logical framework that has been introduced by the internet. I don't think it's difficult to see how the acceptance of such a framework would act as a pair of goggles within which every human interaction gets interpreted in. I don't think it's necessary to explain how that might be limiting or even harmful. However, if there's one thing I've taken from that ideology, it's this: "Observance of a system changes that system". In other words, I believe if you're aware of many of the pitfalls of modern dating/relationships, you're probably less likely to fall into them because you'll subconsciously avoid such things. No need to overcompensate and suffer by making that subconscious process conscious all the time.


Yeah, but redpill is a movement more than anything now, actually it is mostly a field of buisness come to think of it.
As put forward early in this thread by @Lady of Redstones the historical facts and reasons for our social upheaval is not in dispute.
It is pure and simple a power struggle between men and women at this point, and since this is so, everyone is scrambling for any advantage they can muster.
There are big moral and legal battles being fought over what rules should govern this power struggle right now, but it is still a power struggle.
That is where the problem shows itself in terms of actual actions, because any action taken and described, is a tactic or ploy in said struggle.
Hence if I was to describe what I was doing, some feminist amazon, would be in my face instantly, 
telling me how terrible a person I was for actually plotting to grab power in my interactions with women.
That is the game we are playing now, the pretence that none of the parties are actually trying to outplay the other, while at the same time scrambling for every ounce of it.
It is like an undeclared war where none of the parties will acknowledge that shots have been fired, most still date and use diplomatic language,
but masked men in unmarked uniforms are regularly crossing the border in raids from both sides, and everyone is claiming that peace still reigns.
This can only go on for so long, before the whole charade breaks down and full war ensues.



> Surely you trust yourself of all people to make the right decisions yes?


Not really, I've watched myself screw things up multiple times due to bad programming.
That is part of my problem, and a big reason why I have no hurry.
I'm not only charting how the environment responds to small changes, but how I react to the small changes of the environment.
It is a much more complex problem than your initial assumption, and hence twice as hard.
But I don't have anything better to do with my time, so why the hell not?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Fru2 said:


> Yes, Yes! You certainly have the instinct to pursue full individuation. You're aware of the transcendent function but are not sure yet how to fully equip it, but that is the whole meaning of life. The most bountiful paths are long, vague and untreaded. It's your own journey, to find out what following your own principles would look like, all I can say is that you have the capacity, but where does your will reside?


Where does my will reside indeed!
I'm not sure if it permanently resides in any function anymore, though most of the time, I'm obviously willing a Fi/Se kinda will loop.
But I've certainly been able to go into a lot of shadow material with the other functions, yet hard for me to frame it as any specific amount of progress.
Cause as you said, the road is long and all that.

I had a very complex dream tonight that I feel may connect with what is going on right now, 
I dreamed of many trains (libidostreams) and I was watching over children (ideals/content) who wanted to run into the tracks.
For some reason I don't remember why, suddenly I was on trial for something, don't remember the details.
The first judge was a man (the shadow+dominant?), he was very unfair and tried every dirty trick in the book to smear me.
Then in marched 3 female judges (aspects of the anima?) into the courtroom and took my side and wanted to clear my name. 
The male judge was furious and asked them, "Don't you care about the rules?"
That was when I woke up.

I can't be sure that I've identified the main players, but from what I know of them, they seem to fit.



> Why complicate and try to fit everything into one piece while still holding on to so many details? As an ENTJ I wouldn't know how others see me except for one remark someone told me that stood out the most: "What I like about you is that you make everything so simple! You take all of these aspects, find the common denominators and find a simple solution to the task at hand".
> 
> I had no idea that this is what I do until then, but that is indeed what I constantly do. That is my way, the path on which I tread. If you wish to improve on your Te and Ni, seek simplicity. Only when reduced to its mere essence, can massive amounts of data be stored and an answer to everything that comes through your path be identified and thus problem be resolved. l let the problems come to me, and I deal with them. In fact, I wish there were more things I could deal with, more to be responsible for, because life drags on and on unless I jump into more rewarding tasks which I can take on.


That makes sense the whole simplicity thing.
I'm very good at finding the solutions to the outliers, the forgotten exceptions to the rules that everyone else have given up.
The problems everyone else want to sweep under the rug, because it is inconvenient that the main method didn't fix it.
People have mixed reactions of relief and hate, when I fix things, they are reliefed that the problem is fixed.
Yet they hate the bad light it paints them in, when I come in and destroy proplems easily that they have deemed unsolvable toxic issues that must be exterminated.
No matter the costs for those involved, that is a small price to pay to preserve their ego isn't it?
That is where you spot the real evil, in the cracks to the charade of societal presentation, and the brutal oppression of anyone pointing out the obvious.



> Your remarks are very profound, it gives a clear idea of where your head is at, a complete overview of what your stances are, but the problem I see is that there's so many observations in your text(which reflects your thinking) that you're kind of losing the forest for the trees. It's also very real in the sense that you're exposing yourself to criticism by laying out so many points which people could take advantage of.


Yes, I know only too well all the open points in my armor.
I could try to cover them all, but then I would get into a warrior mindset and start taking no hostages.
The same energy that consumed me briefly earlier in this thread, is it really worth it being consumed by darkness, just to not have any weakspots?



> Now my question is, where does the line between superficiality and simplicity reside?


Hmm, that is a tricky question with no clear answer, but I would start to look at the point where evil starts to grow exponantially.
At some point, some individual(s) will start to suffer at the hands of the simplicity, and it will grow quickly.
So to turn the question around, who much pain are you willing to inflict on others to be able to easily do what you do?


----------



## Sentimentality (Oct 9, 2020)

Inveniet said:


> Yeah, but redpill is a movement more than anything now, actually it is mostly a field of buisness come to think of it.
> As put forward early in this thread by @Lady of Redstones the historical facts and reasons for our social upheaval is not in dispute.
> It is pure and simple a power struggle between men and women at this point, and since this is so, everyone is scrambling for any advantage they can muster.
> There are big moral and legal battles being fought over what rules should govern this power struggle right now, but it is still a power struggle.
> ...


It's possible for more than one reality to exist at the same time within a society. The viewpoint you expand on above may very well be true in a variety of contexts, but its growth or decline depends largely on whether or not we accept it. One of the reasons why many people might fight against these views is that they don't want to accept that reality and frankly they don't have to (As long as they can continue to find others who don't accept it either).

So in short, I see where you're coming from but I'd advise against accepting such views as undisputable facts of reality rather than simply another interpretation of reality. Isn't it only to be expected that such explanations would arise within a society who's various romantic myths are being deteriorated as a result of ruthless science?

When a society's sacred myths are torn down, it's only natural the populace becomes cynical.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Inveniet said:


> I had a very complex dream tonight that I feel may connect with what is going on right now,
> I dreamed of many trains (libidostreams) and I was watching over children (ideals/content) who wanted to run into the tracks.
> For some reason I don't remember why, suddenly I was on trial for something, don't remember the details.
> The first judge was a man (the shadow+dominant?), he was very unfair and tried every dirty trick in the book to smear me.
> ...


First judge was Superego from what I can tell. Sounds like you're incorporating your Anima.


Inveniet said:


> I'm very good at finding the solutions to the outliers, the forgotten exceptions to the rules that everyone else have given up.
> The problems everyone else want to sweep under the rug, because it is inconvenient that the main method didn't fix it.
> People have mixed reactions of relief and hate, when I fix things, they are reliefed that the problem is fixed.
> Yet they hate the bad light it paints them in, when I come in and destroy proplems easily that they have deemed unsolvable toxic issues that must be exterminated.
> ...


I find that Te and Fe aren't the actual culprits of what you're decribing, but Si and Ne. You're talking about people that aim to keep up certain appearances, which is basically creating a subjective physical representation that allows for further exploitation of opportunities. Te by itself welcomes problem solving and objectively making things better, the questions is, what is the user's range of perception? Don't get me wrong, the system is flawed in so many ways, there are simple solutions to problems. But these solutions don't generate income, which is why they're swept under the rug. Most people in our world are selfish to the core(can be of any type). They're unable to look beyond their little bubble and see what's going on right in front of their eyes, "not my problem" is the highest virtue, and sin upon sin is the norm. The collective unconscious is sick, society is in rapid decline.

Money is a belief system, and modern people are pious believers of it, they'll sacrifice their time, energy, relationships, friendships, the quality of life, the environment and other people for it. We're born into this system and most don't even care to question the nature of their reality, they can't see past their own predicament and can't gain an external perspective that shows how flawed things are unless they make the effort to. It's inconvenient to admit that things are far from ideal because the alternative is unknown to them.

And most people that do look for alternatives are being led astray by ideologies that subvert them by giving a false hope, selling a better world that will only remain a far ideal they'll never be able to reach. That's where Te-Ni comes in, it shows you what is a false promise and what is a scam, as well as what is feasible when everyone thinks otherwise.

Te is a belief system of its own.
In order to understand that one has to understand what a belief system is - it's a means by which people act in a systematic way with the hopes of achieving something and getting a certain result. That's exactly what Te-Ni does, only that conscious users of it can actively understand what certain actions will bring while non conscious Te-Ni users just use the belief systems already existing. "There's no other alternative".


Inveniet said:


> Hmm, that is a tricky question with no clear answer, but I would start to look at the point where evil starts to grow exponantially.
> At some point, some individual(s) will start to suffer at the hands of the simplicity, and it will grow quickly.
> So to turn the question around, who much pain are you willing to inflict on others to be able to easily do what you do?


Simplicity is a tool, like anything else, used for the wrong reasons it'd generate evil. It all depends on intentions.
People inflict pain on themselves by abiding to the wrong belief system, they sacrifice themselves and when you point out better alternatives that will simplify their lives and make them suffer less pain, they discard your advice and continue their way.

I think that you're conflating simplicity with immorality, objectivity with bad intentions. Te by itself doesn't require one to want to ruin others happiness for personal gain. Te is impersonal, it looks at objective data and decides on objectives, then executes them. An example could be a business exec that sees a potential investment which will increase his other property prices, but it can also be a university professor that creates a system for self reliance(called permaculture) that makes the need for the monetary system obsolete, thus allowing people to live more freely while surrounded by nature and happy, satisfied friends and family.

But here is the presumption that Te requires a give and take with other participants while in actuality conscious Te use can divorce one from being reliant on others and allows one to adopt a personal belief system that is much more beneficial for oneself and others.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Sentimentality said:


> It's possible for more than one reality to exist at the same time within a society. The viewpoint you expand on above may very well be true in a variety of contexts, but its growth or decline depends largely on whether or not we accept it. One of the reasons why many people might fight against these views is that they don't want to accept that reality and frankly they don't have to (As long as they can continue to find others who don't accept it either).


Sure, I don't pretend that other bandwagons don't exists.
Personally I view myself as Switzerland in WW2, if anyone intrude in my airspace, be them redpill or feminists, I shoot them down.
Now redpill don't really have much reason to invade me, they want me to join on their side, but if I wish to be neutral, so be it.
Feminists on the other hand repeatedly parade their troops at my border and make veiled threats in my direction,
so war and conflict with them seem like a much more real threat than having redpill people coming and fucking things up for me.
In fact, redpill people continuously give me valuable intel on the feminists, which makes my defence plans much more sound.
To just take the metaphor to its logical conclusion.



> So in short, I see where you're coming from but I'd advise against accepting such views as undisputable facts of reality rather than simply another interpretation of reality. Isn't it only to be expected that such explanations would arise within a society who's various romantic myths are being deteriorated as a result of ruthless science?


Sure I don't view it as undisputed facts, as I said, I view many of their takes as shallow and problematic.
Personally I grew up quite culturally sheltered in a christian subculture, hence I never had the normal social coolaid.
Hence I struggle with seeing myself in the mainstream persona they try to target.
I never had a normal life, many of my sheltered ideals where shattered when I went into the military at age 18 in 2001.
The current lost ideals where a set of projected ideals I gave myself to not give up hope on love completely.
I've slowly let myself down by first taking Deltas out of the dating pie, then alphas and betas, and I idealized ENTJ with Sx in the stack.

I've come to accept that although Gammas have a natural chemistry flow with me, and that many complexes gets fixed in playful banter.
Still duality only works out if the two people invloved have the same goal, since culture has put us at odds from the getgo,
the likelyhood of finding a matching ENTJ that match my situation as I match her situation is more or less ZERO.
I seem to meet one that match every other criteria like every 6 months or something, and that is by having a lifestyle where I cross a lot of paths.
But everyone I meet is of course a well integrated person in our society, and hence have the same predictable baggage.
They are extroverts, so what can one expect!?



> When a society's sacred myths are torn down, it's only natural the populace becomes cynical.


Yeah that is true, yet knowing how long Jung felt such things took to rebuild, we are talking about 500-1000 years of cynicism or something.
We have just gotten started, it is all downhill from here.
In my lifetime, there will not be a new myth created, I won't live long enough to see it.
Knowing this, pondering and trying to find some meaning in the myths to create some new stuff, or taking part in the funeral of the old, seems pointless to me.
At least from the point of view I have now, I'm open to receiving new information that I havn't considered of course,
but I have to take the stance my current knowledge points me in.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Fru2 said:


> First judge was Superego from what I can tell. Sounds like you're incorporating your Anima.


Ah right! That makes sense, I was too caught up with traditional Jungian archetypes to consider a Freudian structure being represented.
I have really challenged my own notion of right and wrong behavior in various social/public situations, so it makes sense that my superego wants to put me on trial.
I have broken a lot of ground on the "anima" side of things, at least in the sense I understand that phenomena, so it is nice that my anima seemingly approves.



> I find that Te and Fe aren't the actual culprits of what you're decribing, but Si and Ne. You're talking about people that aim to keep up certain appearances, which is basically creating a subjective physical representation that allows for further exploitation of opportunities. Te by itself welcomes problem solving and objectively making things better, the questions is, what is the user's range of perception? Don't get me wrong, the system is flawed in so many ways, there are simple solutions to problems. But these solutions don't generate income, which is why they're swept under the rug. Most people in our world are selfish to the core(can be of any type). They're unable to look beyond their little bubble and see what's going on right in front of their eyes, "not my problem" is the highest virtue, and sin upon sin is the norm. The collective unconscious is sick, society is in rapid decline.


Yeah my bias is showing itself I guess, Te laced with Si is of course much more evil from my personal point of view.
Though I've noticed plenty of Beta suffering from Te with Ni, it is just evil on another level and from another point of view.
They suffer just the same, that is why Jung called it the irreconcilable, because you cannot reach an acceptable compromise,
someone has to suffer, there is no way around it, question is how much suffering is too much?



> Money is a belief system, and modern people are pious believers of it, they'll sacrifice their time, energy, relationships, friendships, the quality of life, the environment and other people for it. We're born into this system and most don't even care to question the nature of their reality, they can't see past their own predicament and can't gain an external perspective that shows how flawed things are unless they make the effort to. It's inconvenient to admit that things are far from ideal because the alternative is unknown to them.
> 
> And most people that do look for alternatives are being led astray by ideologies that subvert them by giving a false hope, selling a better world that will only remain a far ideal they'll never be able to reach. That's where Te-Ni comes in, it shows you what is a false promise and what is a scam, as well as what is feasible when everyone thinks otherwise.
> 
> ...


You have an interesting take on Te and Ni.
I like to think about Te as small and large societal frames.



> I think that you're conflating simplicity with immorality, objectivity with bad intentions. Te by itself doesn't require one to want to ruin others happiness for personal gain. Te is impersonal, it looks at objective data and decides on objectives, then executes them. An example could be a business exec that sees a potential investment which will increase his other property prices, but it can also be a university professor that creates a system for self reliance(called permaculture) that makes the need for the monetary system obsolete, thus allowing people to live more freely while surrounded by nature and happy, satisfied friends and family.
> 
> But here is the presumption that Te requires a give and take with other participants while in actuality conscious Te use can divorce one from being reliant on others and allows one to adopt a personal belief system that is much more beneficial for oneself and others.


Every function has its own set of morality and its own set of right and wrong, and breeds its own kind of evil.
I don't belive this to be a conflation, but just Jung 101.
It is very hard to see and accept the evil that our own dominant perspective gives rise to.
Because it is just right, and have no fault at all, it just creates good, and any evil, is the fault of the sufferer themselves.
As they purely sacrifice themselves in their own stupidity, or so we tell ourselves.
Not that this statement is any reflection of where you are in terms of this in your life, I have no way of knowing, 
I've just seen countless ENTJs think the frames they create and follow are beyond fault as they step on the corpses of its victims.

Every type has its own evils, including my own.
Fi + Se create a sort of beauty evil, where every action is some dramatic enactment of the ideal.
This puts a lot of people in a bad light and brings others down.
There is a lot of jealously, and whatever doesn't fit in the pure view is discarded, with no regard for who it hurts.
On one level there is an empathic understanding and wish to not harm, on the other, a cold nasty reaction to burdens.
A lack of willingness to sacrifice if the ideal of beauty is disturbed, no matter the cost to others.
I don't know if I'm conveying this in a good way, but I say it regardless, and come what may, including the critique I open myself up to


----------



## Sentimentality (Oct 9, 2020)

Inveniet said:


> Sure, I don't pretend that other bandwagons don't exists.
> Personally I view myself as Switzerland in WW2, if anyone intrude in my airspace, be them redpill or feminists, I shoot them down.
> Now redpill don't really have much reason to invade me, they want me to join on their side, but if I wish to be neutral, so be it.
> Feminists on the other hand repeatedly parade their troops at my border and make veiled threats in my direction,
> ...


Fair enough


Inveniet said:


> Sure I don't view it as undisputed facts, as I said, I view many of their takes as shallow and problematic.
> Personally I grew up quite culturally sheltered in a christian subculture, hence I never had the normal social coolaid.
> Hence I struggle with seeing myself in the mainstream persona they try to target.
> I never had a normal life, many of my sheltered ideals where shattered when I went into the military at age 18 in 2001.
> ...


Basically sums up my experience as well. Reminds me of the quote "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."



Inveniet said:


> Yeah that is true, yet knowing how long Jung felt such things took to rebuild, we are talking about 500-1000 years of cynicism or something.
> We have just gotten started, it is all downhill from here.
> In my lifetime, there will not be a new myth created, I won't live long enough to see it.
> Knowing this, pondering and trying to find some meaning in the myths to create some new stuff, or taking part in the funeral of the old, seems pointless to me.
> ...


Yeah it's hard to say when or what that new myth structure will be. Something to keep in mind is we have the internet now, so I'd suspect that we'd construct new myths faster than previous eras.
My only idea of what the new myths will be is probably having to do something with technology. Right now, many are struggling to fulfill needs that previous institutions did such as: marriage, social gatherings like churches or dances, etc. Technology might introduce offline solutions. Imagine living in a city/suburb/town/etc. made up of likeminded people as determined by algorithms and data from online? This is kinda already happening as those with the means migrate to areas with those like themselves.

However, of course it's hard to say because technology is just one piece of the puzzle. There are other issues at play such as wealth inequality.

I agree that your time is probably best spent on your particular situation as opposed to trying to develop some global solution. I'd be curious to hear what you find out.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Sentimentality said:


> Basically sums up my experience as well. Reminds me of the quote "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."


LOL I love that quote! 



> Yeah it's hard to say when or what that new myth structure will be. Something to keep in mind is we have the internet now, so I'd suspect that we'd construct new myths faster than previous eras.
> My only idea of what the new myths will be is probably having to do something with technology. Right now, many are struggling to fulfill needs that previous institutions did such as: marriage, social gatherings like churches or dances, etc. Technology might introduce offline solutions. Imagine living in a city/suburb/town/etc. made up of likeminded people as determined by algorithms and data from online? This is kinda already happening as those with the means migrate to areas with those like themselves.


Well I guess, I've seen a lot of people entertaining the idea of the speedup.
Personally when I analyze the speedup people, they are usually delusional about the speedup though.
Living in their own little bubble of participation mystique and presenting themselves as the keepers of the new cronicles for social status within the walled garden.
I compare it to walled cities that protected merchants form robbers in the dark ages, sure in the walled gardens you where somewhat safe,
but a lot of MAJOR bullshit had to go down before such safety was the norm a few thousand years later.



> However, of course it's hard to say because technology is just one piece of the puzzle. There are other issues at play such as wealth inequality.
> 
> I agree that your time is probably best spent on your particular situation as opposed to trying to develop some global solution. I'd be curious to hear what you find out.


Me too I guess haha...
Right now, I'm sort of trying to balance my own view of how a lot of personality stuff works out with all the redpill "intel".
Every day I learn something new, as I get into situations that challenge me on various topics and inner/outer patterns.
It is real hard to create a nutshell presentation for someone else, as much of what I deal with is on the level of lived experience.
Add to that, the need for 135 posts in this thread, to even get past all the redpill/feminist BS and get to a somewhat level core of what I'm about,
then I sometimes feel like other people don't even deserve me taking the effort to try to impart what I've learned...
In some ways each little nugget of realization needs its own little special thread to unravel.


----------



## Sentimentality (Oct 9, 2020)

Inveniet said:


> LOL I love that quote!


Glad you got something out of it 



Inveniet said:


> Well I guess, I've seen a lot of people entertaining the idea of the speedup.
> Personally when I analyze the speedup people, they are usually delusional about the speedup though.
> Living in their own little bubble of participation mystique and presenting themselves as the keepers of the new cronicles for social status within the walled garden.
> I compare it to walled cities that protected merchants form robbers in the dark ages, sure in the walled gardens you where somewhat safe,
> but a lot of MAJOR bullshit had to go down before such safety was the norm a few thousand years later.


That's a great point. It's hard to say where things will go, but those who claim to have any insight into the future are bound to be people within a "walled garden" because those are the only people with enough time and brain power to conceive of any such ideas. Others are busy living their lives and dealing with the immediate issues they face. Thus, inevitably any such visions of the future are only going to represent the visions of a select few. Great insight there man.



Inveniet said:


> Me too I guess haha...
> Right now, I'm sort of trying to balance my own view of how a lot of personality stuff works out with all the redpill "intel".
> Every day I learn something new, as I get into situations that challenge me on various topics and inner/outer patterns.
> It is real hard to create a nutshell presentation for someone else, as much of what I deal with is on the level of lived experience.
> ...


Balancing the different kinds of intel is tough. First, we recognize that the "intel" is just a bunch of biases. That alone is difficult to comb through. Then, we try to fit different pieces together and find that there are inevitably going to be inconsistencies. So which bit of "intel" is right? Maybe they both are but in different contexts. That adds complexity to it. Then there's our own experiences, which are biased and minimal. Those gotta be combed through too without letting the previous intel contaminate the analysis.

I don't blame you for not having a nutshell presentation. Even if you did, it could change after you typed the period at the end of the first sentence. That's why "comparing notes" with like minded people can be fun.

I know what you mean. The sheer level of ignorance and lack of self-awareness people exhibit is enough to make anyone unwilling to share their information and engage in constructive dialogue. Why waste the brain power on people who can clearly provide no value in return? At the very least people should prove their worth by saying something at least half intelligent, but even that appears to be a lot to ask for from random people.

Anyways, yes, such subjects are complicated. Due to this complexity, it's difficult to say with certainty where we're going, what the solutions are, etc. but it's quite clear what the issues are and how we got here.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Inveniet said:


> Every function has its own set of morality and its own set of right and wrong, and breeds its own kind of evil.
> I don't belive this to be a conflation, but just Jung 101.
> It is very hard to see and accept the evil that our own dominant perspective gives rise to.
> Because it is just right, and have no fault at all, it just creates good, and any evil, is the fault of the sufferer themselves.
> ...


I actually agree with you here, I've seen several examples of that in the past and the realization hit me pretty hard first time watching Berserk and then when reading the manga. Griffith was lliterally shown in a panel walking upon the corpses that dies for the sake of his long term goal. I could 100% relate to him until shit got very very dark. It made me rethink my whole life, no exaggeration. But at the same time, what you said brought me to a realization - some people actually want to be a sacrifice for the right terms and price. When an ENTJ sacrifices others unconsciously it comes out of ignorance, but if it is done in a more conscious manner, within reasonable terms, it could actually be beneficial for both parties.

Look at some ISTPs for instance - they want to be useful and provide whatever help they can, as long as they get respect and a recognition of their contribution. ENTJs who aren't very developed would despise this and lose respect for such people since they don't hold the same ambition/vision/purpose as they do, but that's a huge mistake, because it robs (in this example) the ISTP from the honor, respect and integrity they deserve. So that's another lesson I had to learn, that not everyone has the same ideal, and to respect differing ones just as much and appreciate what they have to offer. Next step for me would be to understand who I could benefit in hopes of reaching highly constructive relations.


Inveniet said:


> Every type has its own evils, including my own.
> Fi + Se create a sort of beauty evil, where every action is some dramatic enactment of the ideal.
> This puts a lot of people in a bad light and brings others down.
> There is a lot of jealously, and whatever doesn't fit in the pure view is discarded, with no regard for who it hurts.
> ...


Yeah I have a good friend who's ISFP, I can definitely see that in him. And I don't mind it one bit. I enjoy his company and see such a passion as an enhancement of my own experience alongside his. ISFPs can have big egos, but there isn't much of a chance that this would intimidate an ENTJ personality. What I truly respect is your type's ability to fully adopt others as a part of your life, and own it in every aspect - family, friends, belongings, pets - ISFPs enhance the importance things have and fully appreciate reality for what it is. There can be some regrets and emotional periods, as well as moments where things are forced and seem a bit artificial, but nothing is ever perfect.

I wonder now about the evils of the other types, because you've reached the same conclusions I did. I know that ISFP and ENTJ might be more of a highlight for you, but I'd imagine you already have some flaws of other types in mind?

Behind every evil there's a potential for good, and vice versa. One has to go into the dark waters of the abyss in order to reach the blessed mountain touching the heavens.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Fru2 said:


> I actually agree with you here, I've seen several examples of that in the past and the realization hit me pretty hard first time watching Berserk and then when reading the manga. Griffith was lliterally shown in a panel walking upon the corpses that dies for the sake of his long term goal. I could 100% relate to him until shit got very very dark. It made me rethink my whole life, no exaggeration. But at the same time, what you said brought me to a realization - some people actually want to be a sacrifice for the right terms and price. When an ENTJ sacrifices others unconsciously it comes out of ignorance, but if it is done in a more conscious manner, within reasonable terms, it could actually be beneficial for both parties.
> 
> Look at some ISTPs for instance - they want to be useful and provide whatever help they can, as long as they get respect and a recognition of their contribution. ENTJs who aren't very developed would despise this and lose respect for such people since they don't hold the same ambition/vision/purpose as they do, but that's a huge mistake, because it robs (in this example) the ISTP from the honor, respect and integrity they deserve. So that's another lesson I had to learn, that not everyone has the same ideal, and to respect differing ones just as much and appreciate what they have to offer. Next step for me would be to understand who I could benefit in hopes of reaching highly constructive relations.


Sure I understand, if someone else benefits from a sacrifice, it would be no worse than if they had initiated the actions on their own behalf without your presense.
And if they feel a sense of ego satisfaction with the rewards, looking at their "loss" from an objective standpoint doesn't always make sense.
Like if I take a walk and succeed in my little walk, my body will be teeny tinily more worn down from it.
If I work hard in the forest to chop threes I may wear my body even more down, yet in both examples I may feel good about the end result.
Who came up with the idea for the walk or the three chopping matters little if the person is okay with it.
Cause from a Jungian standpoint the relative evil we speak of has to do with the impact on the person on an ego suffering level.
Despite that there may be secondary suffering, even if our ISTP friend don't complain about the wear and tear they are put through for honor,
there might be witnesses that suffer from seening the wear and tear on the ISTP, it is sort of this projected empatich bond, that misses the point.
Very hard to control and rein in, but that suffering gets added into the sum total, if we want to or not.
Cause it may make the person cynical and make them act out in bad ways to others.
That is the trickyness with Jungian stuff, because every action is a relative evil for someone, no matter how hard you try to do things right.
Jung drew a very clear distinction between the relative evil we are capable of when we follow our highest calling and what he called absolute evil.
Which is more the deep dark impulse to dive deep into the horrors of the anima/animus and just cause mayhem for mayhems sake,
with no higher ideal than causing suffering to any and all it touches. Or that is the way I've interpreted it, as Jung isn't very clear what that entails.



> Yeah I have a good friend who's ISFP, I can definitely see that in him. And I don't mind it one bit. I enjoy his company and see such a passion as an enhancement of my own experience alongside his. ISFPs can have big egos, but there isn't much of a chance that this would intimidate an ENTJ personality. What I truly respect is your type's ability to fully adopt others as a part of your life, and own it in every aspect - family, friends, belongings, pets - ISFPs enhance the importance things have and fully appreciate reality for what it is. There can be some regrets and emotional periods, as well as moments where things are forced and seem a bit artificial, but nothing is ever perfect.
> 
> I wonder now about the evils of the other types, because you've reached the same conclusions I did. I know that ISFP and ENTJ might be more of a highlight for you, but I'd imagine you already have some flaws of other types in mind?
> 
> Behind every evil there's a potential for good, and vice versa. One has to go into the dark waters of the abyss in order to reach the blessed mountain touching the heavens.


As for evils of the types, I think that could become convoluted and complex real fast.
But as a principle, it flows from subjecting others to ones own highest ideal.
If you subject yourself/same-type or your dual to that standard, there is a sort of balance/fairness to it.
Any other type will feel a sense of suffering that corresponds to whatever mismatch is going on.
You have to compare the ego ideal mixed with the assisting secondary function and how that manifests in that interaction.
The socionics intertype relations is a rough guide on the sort of evil that manifests in such instances.
There are imbalances on different level depending on the type you encounter, and the strain if pretty predictable from that.
Like with the example of the ISTP there is this ideal of efficency for honor, anyone who can't Ti+Se to meet that, is just trash.
The less they are able to participate well in any such sacrificial activity for the higher principle, the more trash they are.
This goes for all the types, everyone else is held up to the guiding light, and perseveres or falls based on that metric.
A neurotic 60 year old of the same type, who never managed to do anything significant in their life, is also trash from this point of view.
And this will subtly be communitcated through the action of exclusion and isolation if nothing else.
We as humans celebrate the ones who manage to use their libido properly and shun and degrade those that doesn't.
This is doubly so for successes in our own types, for failures, it is kinda opposite, we can see our own potential failure in the other.
It takes a different type to really hammer in such failure, the more removed the less they can empatize with any specific problems.
One is just a failiure, and not only that, but one is then held to unrealistic standards after the fact.
(This was hard to express, I hope I managed to word it properly)


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Sentimentality said:


> That's a great point. It's hard to say where things will go, but those who claim to have any insight into the future are bound to be people within a "walled garden" because those are the only people with enough time and brain power to conceive of any such ideas. Others are busy living their lives and dealing with the immediate issues they face. Thus, inevitably any such visions of the future are only going to represent the visions of a select few. Great insight there man.


Thank you, I had that realization watching Naruto in the arc that shows the early history of the Ushiha clan.






The clip is highly edited and probably don't make much sense to anyone not familiar with the show.
Basically two enemies come together to create a village or "walled city" because an accident childhood friendship.
It is a good portrayal of all the issues one would face in a lawless wartorn past, and the benefits of creating a walled refuge.



> Balancing the different kinds of intel is tough. First, we recognize that the "intel" is just a bunch of biases. That alone is difficult to comb through. Then, we try to fit different pieces together and find that there are inevitably going to be inconsistencies. So which bit of "intel" is right? Maybe they both are but in different contexts. That adds complexity to it. Then there's our own experiences, which are biased and minimal. Those gotta be combed through too without letting the previous intel contaminate the analysis.


Sure there isn't any guarantiee that one is right, that is why I used the example of society as this big biological supercomputer.
Even if the algorithm that is you fail, with enough trials by different people, it becomes a bruteforce attack on the problem that eventually solves it.
Yet from a subjective standpoint, all one can do is act out whatever seem to make sense in any moment, only at the end will one know if it was all in vain or not.
I have the "intel" so to speak, combined with everything I've learned so far, a very obvious path opens up for me.
What that path will subject me to, and if I will find success there, I cannot know.



> I don't blame you for not having a nutshell presentation. Even if you did, it could change after you typed the period at the end of the first sentence. That's why "comparing notes" with like minded people can be fun.
> 
> I know what you mean. The sheer level of ignorance and lack of self-awareness people exhibit is enough to make anyone unwilling to share their information and engage in constructive dialogue. Why waste the brain power on people who can clearly provide no value in return? At the very least people should prove their worth by saying something at least half intelligent, but even that appears to be a lot to ask for from random people.
> 
> Anyways, yes, such subjects are complicated. Due to this complexity, it's difficult to say with certainty where we're going, what the solutions are, etc. but it's quite clear what the issues are and how we got here.


Sure, and that is what we do, we compare notes.
To compare notes further, I was intrigued with the problem of evil I encoutered in my convo so far with @Fru2
If we bring that into view in this issue, I can see some very intriguing topics.

What is the success one seek?
There are different levels to this, and failiure to reach the success can be viewed as an "evil" outcome,
meaning that anyone who prevents one from the outcome is doing "evil" to one.

From a genetic standpoint you either pass on your genes or do not.
From this standpoint you can derive a certain level of morality and can justify a lot of things that from other levels would be bad.

From a social standpoint there are norms and laws, meaning that even if you pass on your genes, if you do it the wrong way it is still evil.
One example is having a child with someone below the legal age of the society one lives in, from a genetic standpoint it is acceptable, from a societal it is not.

Then there is the subjective standpoint, even if you pass on your genes and you don't break any laws or norms.
Your life may still be hell from beginning to end, a big subjective story of torment and suffering, from the day you where born to the day you die.
Hence there can still be evils beyond the genetic and societal ones.

Obviously I'm dealing with the third level here.
If I wanted to in my country, I could just hang outside of colleges where the 16-18 olds go.
The legal age here is 16 so if I wanted to I could just target tons of naive 16 year old girls and knock them up.
As long as I pass the requirement for concent, I would be in the clear from a societal and genetic standpoint.
Mission accomplished, I probably have about 14600 days left of my life on average,
so I could in theory have as many 16 year olds knocked up, many would abort the child, but I'm sure there would be plenty of offspring regardless.

Question is, could I live with myself performing such actions?
From the first two levels I'm doing nothing wrong, but there is obviously a lot of subjective pain involved on both sides on the table.
Yet the "intel" tells me that women are doing more or less similar moral stuff with impunity to us men on a regular basis,
so from a "US vs THEM" standpoint, it would make sense to retaliate in kind...

Which is sort of the stance of redpill in a nutshell, you guys are out of control, so we will be out of control,
fuck your subjective experience, cause you obviously don't care about our subjective experience.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Inveniet said:


> Question is, could I live with myself performing such actions?
> From the first two levels I'm doing nothing wrong, but there is obviously a lot of subjective pain involved on both sides on the table.
> Yet the "intel" tells me that women are doing more or less similar moral stuff with impunity to us men on a regular basis,
> so from a "US vs THEM" standpoint, it would make sense to retaliate in kind...
> ...


The problem here is that as a result of that, the most pious feminist and redpill guy will create more and more enemies on both sides. The feminist will hurt an unsuspecting man out of sheer hatred, and the man will as a result have a choice whether to let go of the struggle and choose love instead, to pay back to 'women' for the evil one of them has done by sacrificing one unsuspecting woman to 'the cause', or to pay back all women for being evil. This is where the sentence 'all women are like that' comes from. From the rational standpoint of men, one could easily fall trap into it because it kind of makes sense, and one could point out specific scenarios in every woman that display the 'every woman' trait, but the fault herein is that one action out of many is suddenly regarded as the main motivation, thus enforcing the superstitious belief. Likewise for feminism. It's even worse when both sides are so consumed by 'the cause' that they'll not even check if there's another way to go about it. There are women and men out there who haven't had any experience with the opposite gender before being recruited to one of the sides. And then there are men and women who join the cause of the opposite gender movement for the sake of some unconscious personal gain.

At the end of the day it is a culture war, with cadets and soldiers on each side trying to prove their worth to their clan by fighting for the cause. Ted Kaczinsky introduces in his work a natural need of humans to take on a worthy cause and fight to achieve it, this is called the need for power struggle. This need offers libido that can be channeled into creating magnificent perfection, or it could be misdirected and lead to constant sabotage of an already existing structure. Sometimes when a superstructure is sick, directing the struggle into destroying it is the right thing to do, but that is not what we see nowadays.

Our world is being dictated by a corrupt belief system that has several levels of security wrapped around it, which terrify most people from the get go to take on as a target for the power struggle. Needless to say, this cause is most benevolent since a triumph of it will create the most good for the most amount of people. But there is a minority in our world which benefits from this evil structure, and the minority has a pretty large target audience. It's all the people who live in relative luxury compared to others, who gain more than others do without exerting a fraction of work compared to them. These same people attack 'patriarchy', try to get as much off the system which feeds them, and ignore the fact that the system is driving all the natural qualities of the planet into the ground.

The next level of perception is seeing that these spoiled masses are being controlled through bread and circuses. They're given several streams of propaganda since a very young age and thus adopt one or more of them as a form of identity, thus acting to the cause of the distraction. Blinded by it, they ignore everything else.

It's a form of magic - extracting the idea from a set of actions that leads to a certain result and redirecting the libido connected to that idea onto the siocietal target of the master manipulator/magician for their personal gain. This is done through mainstream media, 'stars', social media, dictats of the state, etc.

In the case of gender movements, the natural and very powerful sexual libido of men and women gets redirected, from seeking a potential mate who will help in growing offspring and successfully ensure in passing on the genes, onto destroying all that is good about the nature of the other gender and bastardizing the conception of it to a point of alienation, where any evil done to the other is met with satisfaction instead of regret and sorrow.

I think Gammas in general have a much more freestanding perspective on societal issues than other types, imo because there's no Fe/Si that attaches us to societal norms to the level of personal involvement in them. We can be prone to being led astray when certain aspects of propaganda appeal to our judgments, but as any other types, when individuation is saught and one learns to know oneself, external control measures start to become clear and one starts to become truly free.

The prison of the modern world is in our minds.
Inscribed at the entrance to the temple of Apollo in Delphi:
_“I warn you, whoever you are, Oh! You who want to probe the “Arcana of Nature”, that if you do not find “within yourself” that which you are looking for, you shall not find it outside either! If you ignore the excellences of your own house, how do you pretend to find other excellences? Within you is hidden the treasure of treasures! “Know Thyself” and you will know the Universe and the Gods.”_


----------



## Sentimentality (Oct 9, 2020)

Inveniet said:


> Thank you, I had that realization watching Naruto in the arc that shows the early history of the Ushiha clan.
> 
> -
> 
> ...






Inveniet said:


> Sure there isn't any guarantiee that one is right, that is why I used the example of society as this big biological supercomputer.
> Even if the algorithm that is you fail, with enough trials by different people, it becomes a bruteforce attack on the problem that eventually solves it.
> Yet from a subjective standpoint, all one can do is act out whatever seem to make sense in any moment, only at the end will one know if it was all in vain or not.
> I have the "intel" so to speak, combined with everything I've learned so far, a very obvious path opens up for me.
> What that path will subject me to, and if I will find success there, I cannot know.


Ultimately any path can be rationalized to be the ideal outcome, so you're probably good no matter what happens as long as the choices you make don't have any irreversible consequences (Although one could argue that every result of an action is irreversible).




Inveniet said:


> Sure, and that is what we do, we compare notes.
> To compare notes further, I was intrigued with the problem of evil I encoutered in my convo so far with @Fru2
> If we bring that into view in this issue, I can see some very intriguing topics.
> 
> ...


Personally, I skip the genetic and social and go straight to the subjective. I want to enjoy my life more than I want to be accepted or "successful" whether that be genetically or socially.

This doesn't remove all issues, but it removes the unnecessary suffering that comes with the desire to conform.



Inveniet said:


> Question is, could I live with myself performing such actions?
> From the first two levels I'm doing nothing wrong, but there is obviously a lot of subjective pain involved on both sides on the table.
> Yet the "intel" tells me that women are doing more or less similar moral stuff with impunity to us men on a regular basis,
> so from a "US vs THEM" standpoint, it would make sense to retaliate in kind...
> ...


Haha, you just gotta pick your poison but I don't think revenge is a good justification for behavior.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

People have responded to me here, but right now I notice I have my head elsewhere on the implementation of a sort of roadmap I puzzled together today.
It is quite detailed, and it is in principle a copy of another system I've successfully used in another area of my life.
I guess in some ways it is what fills the vacuum of my previous relationship ideal.
I don't want to go into details on this, I just wanted to express the satisfaction of having made that kind of progress.
Without the lessons of this thread, I would be hard pressed to have created something like this.
I've had the system I copied for months, but never did it occur to me to bring the essence of it into this area of my life.
So I thank every participant, regardless of their intention and ignore status, you really drove me to create a better path for myself here.
Once the remaining talking points die down, I will most likely leave this thread, as I don't need it anymore.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I felt you said a lot here that I needed to unpack.



Fru2 said:


> The problem here is that as a result of that, the most pious feminist and redpill guy will create more and more enemies on both sides. The feminist will hurt an unsuspecting man out of sheer hatred, and the man will as a result have a choice whether to let go of the struggle and choose love instead, to pay back to 'women' for the evil one of them has done by sacrificing one unsuspecting woman to 'the cause', or to pay back all women for being evil. This is where the sentence 'all women are like that' comes from. From the rational standpoint of men, one could easily fall trap into it because it kind of makes sense, and one could point out specific scenarios in every woman that display the 'every woman' trait, but the fault herein is that one action out of many is suddenly regarded as the main motivation, thus enforcing the superstitious belief. Likewise for feminism. It's even worse when both sides are so consumed by 'the cause' that they'll not even check if there's another way to go about it. There are women and men out there who haven't had any experience with the opposite gender before being recruited to one of the sides. And then there are men and women who join the cause of the opposite gender movement for the sake of some unconscious personal gain.
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day it is a culture war, with cadets and soldiers on each side trying to prove their worth to their clan by fighting for the cause. Ted Kaczinsky introduces in his work a natural need of humans to take on a worthy cause and fight to achieve it, this is called the need for power struggle. This need offers libido that can be channeled into creating magnificent perfection, or it could be misdirected and lead to constant sabotage of an already existing structure. Sometimes when a superstructure is sick, directing the struggle into destroying it is the right thing to do, but that is not what we see nowadays.


Seems like the same psychological mechanism that drive regular war drives this stuff.
We are leveling out and redirecting the mechanism for culture war rather than regular war,
in some sense it is a step in the right direction I guess, better to break hearts than to shoot bullets in them.
If that indeed is the trend and not just something I imagine to be the case.



> Our world is being dictated by a corrupt belief system that has several levels of security wrapped around it, which terrify most people from the get go to take on as a target for the power struggle. Needless to say, this cause is most benevolent since a triumph of it will create the most good for the most amount of people. But there is a minority in our world which benefits from this evil structure, and the minority has a pretty large target audience. It's all the people who live in relative luxury compared to others, who gain more than others do without exerting a fraction of work compared to them. These same people attack 'patriarchy', try to get as much off the system which feeds them, and ignore the fact that the system is driving all the natural qualities of the planet into the ground.
> 
> The next level of perception is seeing that these spoiled masses are being controlled through bread and circuses. They're given several streams of propaganda since a very young age and thus adopt one or more of them as a form of identity, thus acting to the cause of the distraction. Blinded by it, they ignore everything else.
> 
> It's a form of magic - extracting the idea from a set of actions that leads to a certain result and redirecting the libido connected to that idea onto the siocietal target of the master manipulator/magician for their personal gain. This is done through mainstream media, 'stars', social media, dictats of the state, etc.


I'm not sure if I totally agree with this.
To me, the people at the top are just as much helpless participants in the big beast we call humanity.
Sure they get first pick of everything, but at the same time, they are not as powerful as they may seem.
Only an absolute dictator, can hope to stear a society with any sort of accuracy, and especially in the west,
our leaders, powerful men and women are anything but that.
So they are just more privileged participants in the same game, more or less at the mercy of the structures they are set to control.
To think that all the powerful people come together and actually conspire for some greater evil, is obviously false.
Anyone who know socionics interpersonal dynamics, know how fast such a scheme would collapse, from the various ways people tend to want to do things.
Again only a centralized authority figure, like Hitler, are truly able to organize a well functioning evil agenda.
Any other collection of individuals usually slow down and malfunction due to inertia and lack of real attitudinal cohesion.



> In the case of gender movements, the natural and very powerful sexual libido of men and women gets redirected, from seeking a potential mate who will help in growing offspring and successfully ensure in passing on the genes, onto destroying all that is good about the nature of the other gender and bastardizing the conception of it to a point of alienation, where any evil done to the other is met with satisfaction instead of regret and sorrow.
> 
> I think Gammas in general have a much more freestanding perspective on societal issues than other types, imo because there's no Fe/Si that attaches us to societal norms to the level of personal involvement in them. We can be prone to being led astray when certain aspects of propaganda appeal to our judgments, but as any other types, when individuation is saught and one learns to know oneself, external control measures start to become clear and one starts to become truly free.
> 
> ...


Yeah this is true, another thing about us Gammas, are that this kind of game, sort of is our natural game.
The only reason I struggle at it, is that I have had other Quadras ideals pushed down my throat for most of my life.
This thread has been a rejection of those ideals, and the solution I have come up with is very much a Gamma plan of action.

I wasn't aware that the know yourself thing was so long and comprehensive.
Food for thought!


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

ENFPathetic said:


> "I'm rubber. You're glue!"
> 
> You have the verbal prowess of a toddler and the delusions of a Kanye. Jog on kid.


Ah yes I did outright express my godhood and all of that, man I'm even trying christian rap to make my search of meaning that much more significant nowadays. By your own admission you don't even realise that you're simply censoring people who have a knack for blunt talk, by deeming the form and not the content, unacceptable.

Indeed, I will jog on to run away from mentally brilliant specimens like you, that's kinda a given. And don't worry, you wont be blocked, simply for entertainment purposes.



> I think Gammas in general have a much more freestanding perspective on societal issues than other types, imo because there's no Fe/Si that attaches us to societal norms to the level of personal involvement in them. We can be prone to being led astray when certain aspects of propaganda appeal to our judgments, but as any other types, when individuation is saught and one learns to know oneself, external control measures start to become clear and one starts to become truly free.


Gammas only care about what they do profit from as well as their attachments to things, because they do not value Fe. They're the capitalists, in short. They genuinely do not care.

So from a certain point of view, freestanding is more or less correct, I'd use selfish however


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Sygma said:


> So from a certain point of view, freestanding is more or less correct, I'd use selfish however


@Sygma Here to deliver the last word I see, how humanitarian and selfless of you.


Inveniet said:


> Only an absolute dictator, can hope to stear a society with any sort of accuracy, and especially in the west,


The socalled 'leaders' are mere actors. Having my opinion on the matter without the knowledge to support it would be quite delusional on my side. This wasn't my initial opinion, I must say. My first uneducated guesses were that people are just not that smart, effective or organized. Until I started seeing the patterns in books I've read and operations I've seen. The signs are all around us but we're being conditioned not to see them, partly by our own family.
Grand Chessboard - Zbigniew Brzezinski
Charles Galton Darwin - The next Million Years, essays in eugenics
Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider - Club of Rome First Global Revolution
John Dee - The Rosicrucian Secrets
And many more sources which I'll not bore you with. Above the money issuing private corporations('Federal' Reserve being one) lies a class untouched by the masses. They rule through Scientific means in the form of social engineering and their main vehicles of control are credit maniulation, propaganda through all mainstream media and brute force in the form of wardogs and police, which are being glorified by media but are essentially there to keep the population subdued.
But this is another topic altogether.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Fru2 said:


> @Sygma Here to deliver the last word I see, how humanitarian and selfless of you.


its just Ti stuff, its not personal. i dont think gammas are misunderstood at all, especially when you see the more thriving ones. In fact its the most adapted quadra to deal with our current times, along with the almost never mentionned Deltas

Betas have been incredibly busy filling the karens and sjws ranks on one side, to fight with the conservative / extremists ones on the other. Alpha gonna alpha


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Sygma said:


> its just Ti stuff, its not personal. i dont think gammas are misunderstood at all, especially when you see the more thriving ones. In fact its the most adapted quadra to deal with our current times, along with the almost never mentionned Deltas
> 
> Betas have been incredibly busy filling the karens and sjws ranks on one side, to fight with the conservative / extremists ones on the other. Alpha gonna alpha


I actually agree with your take, but probably for different reasons. What you consider as selfish is more so the ability to assess the true value of things and people instead of what they're proclaimed to be. Other types buy in much more easily into things they shouldn't.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Fru2 said:


> I actually agree with your take, but probably for different reasons. What you consider as selfish is more so the ability to assess the true value of things and people instead of what they're proclaimed to be. Other types buy in much more easily into things they shouldn't.


Not so adamant about that one because fundamentally, humanity is constantly fighting around ideologies. I do not think Fi in that sense is better equipped to make a better judgment, its simply a truly "personal" one over anything else - despite of laws or such -

Fi is really just one's evaluation of distance toward the object of their attraction and being very strict about it. What could ring true for them could be extremely problematic for others. And its the same problem with Te over Ti : what works over principles


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Sygma said:


> Not so adamant about that one because fundamentally, humanity is constantly fighting around ideologies. I do not think Fi in that sense is better equipped to make a better judgment, its simply a truly "personal" one over anything else - despite of laws or such -
> 
> Fi is really just one's evaluation of distance toward the object of their attraction and being very strict about it. What could ring true for them could be extremely problematic for others. And its the same problem with Te over Ti : what works over principles


I don't see Ti as principles, because Fi has it's own set of moral principles and Te its own set of logical principles. Ti is a logical framework which divorces from the external the more it progresses and only values what makes sense for oneself(it's own form of selfishness). That's literally Jung's definition of it. Fe doms project their own Ti onto others due to Anima/us, so it leads them to see others as having the same logic they have and thus think others are selfish. This problem comes mainly due to the individualistic nature of our times, which affects different types differently. There's more shit to deal with that our ancestors didn't have. What is truly important is pushed as unneccesary and vice versa. We're held back from individuation and are led into collectivity instead.

But I don't think Ti and Fe by themselves aren't equipped for our age, look at ESTPs for instance, they can do pretty well in the job market although they can be clueless about who they want to end up with.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Fru2 said:


> I don't see Ti as principles, because Fi has it's own set of moral principles and Te its own set of logical principles. Ti is a logical framework which divorces from the external the more it progresses and only values what makes sense for oneself(it's own form of selfishness). That's literally Jung's definition of it. Fe doms project their own Ti onto others due to Anima/us, so it leads them to see others as having the same logic they have and thus think others are selfish. This problem comes mainly due to the individualistic nature of our times, which affects different types differently. There's more shit to deal with that our ancestors didn't have. What is truly important is pushed as unneccesary and vice versa. We're held back from individuation and are led into collectivity instead.
> 
> But I don't think Ti and Fe by themselves aren't equipped for our age, look at ESTPs for instance, they can do pretty well in the job market although they can be clueless about who they want to end up with.


Thought this was about socio's Ti, not mbti / jung's since we were talking about socio's quadras. Ti in socionics is principles / structured frameworks / consistency check / logistics etc. Element itself is called Laws

Also agree about ESTPs, but more often than not they're SEEs, ie Gammas. They can be SLEs too but its rare


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Sygma said:


> Ah yes I did outright express my godhood and all of that, man I'm even trying christian rap to make my search of meaning that much more significant nowadays.


It's hyperbole. Based on statements like the one below.



Sygma said:


> And don't worry, you wont be blocked, simply for entertainment purposes.


Why on earth would I be worried about you blocking me? Do you see your deluded reflection in the mirror?



Sygma said:


> By your own admission you don't even realise that you're simply censoring people who have a knack for blunt talk, by deeming the form and not the content, unacceptable.


This is what I mean when I say you must be young. Have you not seen the world you live in? Do you not realise why companies sink so many resources into advertising and packaging? Or why people spend so much time and money on their appearance? Form comes before content. Before anyone ever gives a shit about what you have to offer, you have to get their attention. You have to make them want to listen/see/experience your content. And the cold hard truth is, if your form sucks, your content will not get the exposure you want it to get. Stop whining about it and learn some manners.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Fru2 said:


> @Sygma Here to deliver the last word I see, how humanitarian and selfless of you.
> 
> The socalled 'leaders' are mere actors. Having my opinion on the matter without the knowledge to support it would be quite delusional on my side. This wasn't my initial opinion, I must say. My first uneducated guesses were that people are just not that smart, effective or organized. Until I started seeing the patterns in books I've read and operations I've seen. The signs are all around us but we're being conditioned not to see them, partly by our own family.
> Grand Chessboard - Zbigniew Brzezinski
> ...


Sure, I do know of these "clubs" for the influential, and I don't doubt for a second that they are hard at work with various agendas.
They are probably as effective as any modern organization, and can probably get lots of stuff done.

Now, my point isn't to dispute this, but I'm pointing to something else, the fact that they are not independent of the collective consciousness.
They have members of all quadras, so even though they themselves and the people reporting on them, might think that they are something "special",
they are no more special than any other ruling class ever in terms of psychology.
If they get too onesided and evil, people within it will splinter off, first whistleblowers like Snowden, then if it goes really far, 
entire segments of the organizations might just desert over some difference in attitudinal take on some major agenda point.
If that doesn't stop it, there will in the end be some sort of revolution where a modern take of the guillotine will "take their head off".
In the mean time, we may have ended up in some sort of dystopia, but if you look really closely, any society, is a dystopia for someone.

A good recent example of big organizations failing to understand people was Afghanistan, 
the west though they had armed and trained the afghan security forces well enough to cover their retreat.
But they didn't count on them just more or less giving up before they could fully pull out.
When it comes to large groups of people with various conflicting quadra and stages of culture interacting, it is very hard, 
especially for a senile Delta SLI like Biden to understand how the world will just make all your plans bite the dust.
Trump being a Beta SLE had a natural understanding of the type of culture driving the Taliban, so he was more effective at keeping them at bay.

It seems to me that you have taken a sort of fascination with the various manipulations of these groups.
Nothing wrong with that, probably very interesting stuff.
But is it really new that the elites manipulate money, lie through propaganda and have law enforcement bash in the skulls of those that challenge them?
When people have an almost reverent attitude towards it in the sense that they almost feel like they are talking about the devil, and fear the evil eye.
You can be sure that our collective consciousness is sowing the seed for some eventual resolution to the direction these people are taking.
It might be a while, and many transgressions will naturally take place, but that is hardly new either.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@Fru2 this audio by Carl Sagan sort of elaborates on the pointlessness of thinking that any hidden cabal have any great and overwhelming meaning.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Curious. So it's all about power and control or more aptly, the absence of control and power in your lives. Has it ever occurred to you guys that women aren't objects?


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

@Inveniet I share your sentiment but alas can't unsee what I have seen.


mia-me said:


> Has it ever occurred to you guys that women aren't objects?


It has never occured to me that I'm supposed to think that they are.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Fru2 said:


> It has never occured to me that I'm supposed to think that they are.


Think about this thread and why power structures are the framework. I recall a discussion a long time ago about domestic abuse and how many men devolve when their lives aren't in the condition they wish, so they take out their frustration on women. In order to do this, it requires that women be dehumanized, something to be controlled, used and abused.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Fru2 said:


> @Inveniet I share your sentiment but alas can't unsee what I have seen.
> 
> It has never occured to me that I'm supposed to think that they are.


Of course!
Regardless of sentiment in the abstract, if the shit seems about to hit the fan in some way in real terms,
then obviously you can't just ignore that, like if you are convinced that these people will make YOUR reality into a dystopia.
Then it is obviously important for you as an individual to take that information very seriously, and do your best to prepare for the storm so to speak.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Inveniet said:


> Of course!
> Regardless of sentiment in the abstract, if the shit seems about to hit the fan in some way in real terms,
> then obviously you can't just ignore that, like if you are convinced that these people will make YOUR reality into a dystopia.
> Then it is obviously important for you as an individual to take that information very seriously, and do your best to prepare for the storm so to speak.


Very aptly said, this is why I'm trying to help as many as possible in their road to individuation. Because I'm not alone in this world, and the less uniformal we are as a whole, the more consciousness expands, the less we can be predicted and the less we're prone to manipulation. Jung has given us a gift, there's a reason mainstream psychiatrists treat him as no more than a cultist.


mia-me said:


> Think about this thread and why power structures are the framework. I recall a discussion a long time ago about domestic abuse and how many men devolve when their lives aren't in the condition they wish, so they take out their frustration on women. In order to do this, it requires that women be dehumanized, something to be controlled, used and abused.


That's a pretty inefficient way of channeling anger, I'd rather utilize it in ways that promote the things I believe in. Not only that, it's a cowardly act and for you to propose that all men are as such is pretty sexist on your side. Dehumanizing, even. Not really angered by your words because I don't hold them to much importance, but this is the message I get from what you're alluding to.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

mia-me said:


> Think about this thread and why power structures are the framework. I recall a discussion a long time ago about domestic abuse and how *many men* devolve when their lives aren't in the condition they wish, so they take out their frustration on women. In order to do this, it requires that women be dehumanized, something to be controlled, used and abused.





Fru2 said:


> Not only that, it's a cowardly act and for you to propose that* all men* are as such is pretty sexist on your side. Dehumanizing, even. Not really angered by your words because I don't hold them to much importance, but this is the message I get from what you're alluding to.


Apparently, many = all. Yup, set up the strawman to burn it down. Never mind.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

mia-me said:


> Apparently, many = all. Yup, set up the strawman to burn it down. Never mind.


You're bringing up something we've personally discussed in this thread and linking it up to domestic abuse claiming 'many men' do it. Strawman eh.


----------

