# Victim/aggressor between beta and gamma



## Entropic

How does victim/aggressor differ between beta and gamma? Gamma Se is blocked with Fi that's intrinsically focused on understanding relationship closeness/distance so the nature of a relationship would be gauged by judging the actions of the aggressor. It therefore makes sense that gamma NTs may struggle with making sense of relationships and whether people like or dislike them and how they stand like that in relation to other people and the only way to ascertain that is via the observation of people's attitudes and actions towards you.

However, Beta NFs have high dimensional Fi and would therefore logically speaking have an easier time telling what other people think about them. How does the victim style of feeling insecure in knowing what the other people think about them in terms of interest play out in this regard? Especially seeing how beta NFs are great at understanding the future development of relationships? 

Conversely, what about delta STs that also value Fi and have Fe in the superego block but are caretakers? Don't they too feel insecure about knowing what other people think of them and where they stand in relation to the other and how to deal with that social space between people? How do delta STs read that from their duals?

Tl;dr I don't understand the difference between Fi (in the super-id) and the victim type dichotomy.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Victim means they want to be dominated. If they aren't being dominated, they don't like you. Them asking about you liking them or whatnot is actually them saying they don't like you. Fi-Se wants to isolate you from others. Ti-Se wants to create a structure/family/whatever to keep you put.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Also...

Aggressor/Victim is a nice way to say Elektra Complex, and Caretaker/Infantile is a nice way to say Oedipus Complex.


----------



## eastwin

About Victims in general, I just think that they are prone to think about the long-term side of a relationship. Ni-egos aren't perfectly connected to the present, and able to enjoy it. So imo, victims see the state of a relationship as being temporary.
Even if Beta NF are able to know without much difficulty the state of a relationship, there is still a negative possibility of development that exists. The interest cannot stay at the same intensity for eternity, and Victims are probably overly-aware of that. That's why they require that the interest of their partneer remain perfectly known, and mastered. They only want things to last, and thus want to feel like they are being "attached" to the relationship by their partner (if you see what I mean here).

That's why they will probably become distant if they feel like the status of the relationship is unclear. They won't involve themselves in an unclear situation, because they will firstly see the bad consequences of their actions. Why engage a relationship if we don't know if it will last? That's why, they need to know that the relationship is serious, and that their partner will fight for it. Victims need to see this determination and willpower from their partner. Do you see what I mean? I think that the most important thing for a victim, isn't to know the state of the relationship, but rather to know the will of his/her partner.

Victims are detached by nature, so they need to be attached to things.
The difference between Gamma and Beta will probably be the initiation of emotionnality. I suppose that Gamma SF will be the one who will initiate in this aspect, but in the Beta quadra, NFs are actually initiating this part. Beta STs aren't really very aware about emotions and feelings in the relationship, so they will need from the NF to initiate the expression of emotions, and to clarify the state of their feelings. In a sense, the Beta NF have to insufflate the passion, in order to instaure intimacy and closeness in the relationship.
I don't know if what I said makes sense. That's all I know about it for now.

I don't know much about Delta STs, I guess that they just want to feel like they are needed, and that's why the Infantile style is perfect for them. They probably count on their NF partner to reassure them about the relationship. Maybe Delta STs could enlighten us.


----------



## Entropic

For example, consider this about the aggressor style:



> no doubts about own interest in another person


But Fi PoLR means poor ability to tell whether you like or dislike someone, especially in terms of intimate relationships, so how does this play out with being an aggressor? 

Furthermore:



> This romance style is defined by focus on Se which is static, irrational, and extroverted. This means that an Aggressor sees attraction to another person as a static state, which he feels it is up to him *to change in the direction more in agreement to his preferences*.


The underlined and bolded part, for example, how does an SLE know what preferences they have when they have Fi PoLR? 

Then, for victim, we have:



> prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person


But if you have access to strong Fi which operates on like/dislike and attraction/repulsion, shouldn't it be easier to tell whether you are interested in someone else or not?


----------



## Entropic

eastwin said:


> About Victims in general, I just think that they are prone to think about the long-term side of a relationship. Ni-egos aren't perfectly connected to the present, and able to enjoy it. So imo, victims see the state of a relationship as being temporary.
> Even if Beta NF are able to know without much difficulty the state of a relationship, there is still a negative possibility of development that exists. The interest cannot stay at the same intensity for eternity, and Victims are probably overly-aware of that. That's why they require that the interest of their partneer remain perfectly known, and mastered. They only want things to last, and thus want to feel like they are being "attached" to the relationship by their partner (if you see what I mean here).
> 
> That's why they will probably become distant if they feel like the status of the relationship is unclear. They won't involve themselves in an unclear situation, because they will firstly see the bad consequences of their actions. Why engage a relationship if we don't know if it will last? That's why, they need to know that the relationship is serious, and that their partner will fight for it. Victims need to see this determination and willpower from their partner. Do you see what I mean? I think that the most important thing for a victim, isn't to know the state of the relationship, but rather to know the will of his/her partner.
> 
> Victims are detached by nature, so they need to be attached to things.
> *The difference between Gamma and Beta will probably be the initiation of emotionnality. I suppose that Gamma SF will be the one who will initiate in this aspect, but in the Beta quadra, NFs are actually initiating this part. Beta STs aren't really very aware about emotions and feelings in the relationship, so they will need from the NF to initiate the expression of emotions, and to clarify the state of their feelings. In a sense, the Beta NF have to insufflate the passion, in order to instaure intimacy and closeness in the relationship.*
> I don't know if what I said makes sense. That's all I know about it for now.
> 
> I don't know much about Delta STs, I guess that they just want to feel like they are needed, and that's why the Infantile style is perfect for them. They probably count on their NF partner to reassure them about the relationship. Maybe Delta STs could enlighten us.


How does the bold relate to my previous post about victim/aggressor as copied from how it's phrased in the article pertaining to SLE/IEI in particular and how that plays out in aggressor/victim? If the victim is unsure of their feelings towards the aggressor i.e.:



> not always confident about revealing that interest


How can an IEI reveal or try to propel interest in the SLE?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Seriously, I'm being totally serious lol. Just look at the general descriptions of the romance styles with aggressor/infantile as male and victim/caretaker as female. Gulenko just plugged in the Oedipus/Elektra complexes and slapped some socionics lingo on it lol


----------



## Entropic

Idk, I kind of feel like perhaps the aggressor/victim article is biased towards gamma, or maybe I'm biased.


----------



## selena87

Entropic said:


> But Fi PoLR means poor ability to tell whether you like or dislike someone, especially in terms of intimate relationships, so how does this play out with being an aggressor?
> The underlined and bolded part, for example, how does an SLE know what preferences they have when they have Fi PoLR?


I'm quite unaware of my own likes/dislikes yes, especially at the moment. But after reflecting and observing my own actions I will know whether I like someone or not.

For example, if I keep trying to talk to someone and cheer him up, and on the other hand keep avoiding another person, then I will figure out that I like the first person and dislike the second person. 

In essence, I act first without thinking much about my likes/dislikes, but my preferences show naturally through actions, and by observing how I acted after a period of interaction I will understand my interest and thus go for the person.

I hope that helps, this is my interpretation of Fi polr.


----------



## Wolfskralle

I was under the impression, that classic victim/agressor description relate more to Beta, than Gamma. Betas have Se-, hence are more openly aggressive and confrontational, while Gammas, with Se+, are typically more defensive with their Se. I understand Gamma aggressive romance style more like an indirect act of "aggression"/ethical manipulation, than open expression of force of will, as it is shown by Beta ST's.
Kinda opposite of what eastwin have said, I understand Gemma aggressors as less likely to initiate contact, than their Beta counterparts. Even to the point, that some Gamma victims might confuse themselves as aggressors, and vice versa. That's just a speculation thought, LF confirmation.

It also might have something to do with traditional gender roles, as Fi is typically perceived as feminine, while Ti - and thinking in general - will be more masculine.

Some theory:



> Psuedo-Aggressors/Employees: LIE (ENTj) ILI (INTp)
> 
> These are types who exhibit aggressive tendencies in their everyday life, and as a result tend to carry over these notions and temperaments into their romantic life. They typically are not comfortable with connotations of the word "victim" - implying a certain weakness, effeteness, and lack of dignity. In searching for a partner, they are looking for a worthy opponent - someone who is strong enough to withstand their quirks without "breaking" so to speak.
> 
> Aggressors/Employers: SEE (ESFp) ESI (ISFj)
> 
> These types, like the conquerors, express their sexuality openly. In daily life they may tend to be rather submissive and as a result may tend to carry over these tendencies into their romantic life. They are won over by indirect acts of submission, and are thrilled when their love interest (in the case of the "psuedo-aggressor" type) acts unlike himself. In a partner, they are looking for their equal - someone whose solid facade they can break down piece by piece.
> 
> Conquerors: SLE (ESTp) LSI (ISTj)
> 
> These are assertive types who do not flinch at their own sexuality. They will express their own desire without reservation. They are won over by direct shows of submission (only after feeling that they have earned it). He will be insulted if his romantic interest gives him his title without question, and bored if the fight is too easily won. He, like the Pseudo-Aggressor and the Challenger, is questing to find his equal. Someone he can play his almost sadistic games with without "breaking."
> 
> Challengers/Trophies: EIE (ENFj) IEI (INFp)
> 
> These are the types who unconsciously throw a "gauntlet" down for their opponents. They know on an almost subliminal level exactly who they are looking for, and anyone who does not fit the bill will be subjected to a rather flakey, hot-cold game of courting tag. As a result, they may appear (both to others and to themselves) rather amorphous and can take on qualities of the other romantic attitudes, depending on the situation and who they are "challenging."
> 
> They may, for example, give the victim half his aggressor, the psuedo-aggressor a little victim, the caregiver a bit of his child, etc. They react best, however, to those who do not "break" as a result of their games, but grant them a level of autonomy. Healthy examples of this type will have a sense of self-esteem, and may think of themselves as the "prize" that will be given only to the rightful owner.




Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics Romancing Styles


----------



## eastwin

Entropic said:


> Then, for victim, we have:
> 
> "prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person "
> 
> But if you have access to strong Fi which operates on like/dislike and attraction/repulsion, shouldn't it be easier to tell whether you are interested in someone else or not?


Indeed. I must admit that seems a bit off. As an IEI at least, I'm totally in control and aware of the attraction I could feel. I also know with accuracy the state of this feeling, and what it means. So there are no inital doubts about it. The feeling appear one day, and then evolve progressively, growing and becoming stronger. This part may be biased toward Gamma I guess.



> How does the bold relate to my previous post about victim/aggressor as copied from how it's phrased in the article pertaining to SLE/IEI in particular and how that plays out in aggressor/victim? If the victim is unsure of their feelings towards the aggressor i.e.:
> 
> "not always confident about revealing that interest"
> How can an IEI reveal or try to propel interest in the SLE?


Well, maybe I phrased it badly. Once the SLE is interested in someone, he/she will directly take actions and initiatives. But at the same time, the SLE will request emotional expression and reactions from his/her partner. This is why the relationship can be settled up quite easily.

The IEI seems to be able to soften the SLE, with a general romantic attitude and polite behavior, as it is said in this long article. The IEI won't really reveal his own interest, even if he knows that it is a reciprocal interest. The SLE must take initiative, because as I said in my previous post, the willpower of the other person remains more important than the state of the relationship. On the other hand, the SLE will want to possess the victim even if he/she is unaware of one's attraction.

That's all I know unfortunately, but I must agree that the article must be a bit biased toward Gammas I guess. But overall the major victim/aggressor rules remain true, at least those based on Ni and Se.


----------



## Ixim

eastwin said:


> About Victims in general, I just think that they are prone to think about the long-term side of a relationship. Ni-egos aren't perfectly connected to the present, and able to enjoy it. So imo, victims see the state of a relationship as being temporary.
> Even if Beta NF are able to know without much difficulty the state of a relationship, there is still a negative possibility of development that exists. The interest cannot stay at the same intensity for eternity, and Victims are probably overly-aware of that. That's why they require that the interest of their partneer remain perfectly known, and mastered. They only want things to last, and thus want to feel like they are being "attached" to the relationship by their partner (if you see what I mean here).
> 
> That's why they will probably become distant if they feel like the status of the relationship is unclear. They won't involve themselves in an unclear situation, because they will firstly see the bad consequences of their actions. Why engage a relationship if we don't know if it will last? That's why, they need to know that the relationship is serious, and that their partner will fight for it. Victims need to see this determination and willpower from their partner. Do you see what I mean? I think that the most important thing for a victim, isn't to know the state of the relationship, but rather to know the will of his/her partner.
> 
> Victims are detached by nature, so they need to be attached to things.
> The difference between Gamma and Beta will probably be the initiation of emotionnality. I suppose that Gamma SF will be the one who will initiate in this aspect, but in the Beta quadra, NFs are actually initiating this part. Beta STs aren't really very aware about emotions and feelings in the relationship, so they will need from the NF to initiate the expression of emotions, and to clarify the state of their feelings. In a sense, the Beta NF have to insufflate the passion, in order to instaure intimacy and closeness in the relationship.
> I don't know if what I said makes sense. That's all I know about it for now.
> 
> I don't know much about Delta STs, I guess that they just want to feel like they are needed, and that's why the Infantile style is perfect for them. They probably count on their NF partner to reassure them about the relationship. Maybe Delta STs could enlighten us.


West is that you? You can't fool me with that inversion :wink: .

1 / west = east
1 / lose = win

Since when are you LSE?


----------



## eastwin

Ixim said:


> West is that you? You can't fool me with that inversion :wink: .
> 
> 1 / west = east
> 1 / lose = win
> 
> Since when are you LSE?


Lol, indeed. I thought that people would recognize me that way.
My account get hacked, so now it's banned. I try to forget this traumatism though, I didn't knew that someone hated me that much.

I type as LSE now, because westlose = IEI - eastwin = LSE. Polar opposites.


----------



## Jeremy8419

@Wolfskralle

How bout this theory I made up? Lol

Random translation into Freudian junk

(remember duality, beta/gamma want same issues with partners parents, alpha/delta want different issues with partners parents)
Aggressor Male = Daddy issues
Aggressor Female = Mommy issues
Victim Male = Mommy issues
Victim Female = Daddy issues
Caregiver Male = Mommy issues
Caregiver Female = Daddy issues
Infantile Male = Mommy issues
Infantile Female = Daddy issues
E = Oral fixation (too long)
I = Oral fixation (too short)
J = Anal-retentive
P = Anal-expulsive

I forgot the other stages *shrug* but they probably complete it


----------



## Jeremy8419

eastwin said:


> Lol, indeed. I thought that people would recognize me that way.
> My account get hacked, so now it's banned. I try to forget this traumatism though, I didn't knew that someone hated me that much.
> 
> I type as LSE now, because westlose = IEI - eastwin = LSE. Polar opposites.


Mhmmm... Unconscious attraction to EII's dual... Dually noted.


----------



## Ixim

Entropic said:


> For example, consider this about the aggressor style:
> 
> 
> 
> But Fi PoLR means poor ability to tell whether you like or dislike someone, especially in terms of intimate relationships, so how does this play out with being an aggressor?
> 
> Furthermore:
> 
> 
> 
> The underlined and bolded part, for example, how does an SLE know what preferences they have when they have Fi PoLR?
> 
> Then, for victim, we have:
> 
> 
> 
> But if you have access to strong Fi which operates on like/dislike and attraction/repulsion, shouldn't it be easier to tell whether you are interested in someone else or not?


Because there aren't four romance styles but 8?

Alpha SF
Alpha NT
Beta ST
Beta NF
Gamma SF
Gamma NT
Delta ST
Delta NF

I see that you noticed that Beta ST and Gamma SF can't possibly have completely equal approach. And that is mostly true, yeah.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> (remember duality, beta/gamma want same issues with partners parents, alpha/delta want different issues with partners parents)


Why?

(Also, do you identify with having mommy issues?)


----------



## Entropic

Wolfskralle said:


> I was under the impression, that classic victim/agressor description relate more to Beta, than Gamma. Betas have Se-, hence are more openly aggressive and confrontational, while Gammas, with Se+, are typically more defensive with their Se. I understand Gamma aggressive romance style more like an indirect act of "aggression"/ethical manipulation, than open expression of force of will, as it is shown by Beta ST's.
> Kinda opposite of what eastwin have said, I understand Gemma aggressors as less likely to initiate contact, than their Beta counterparts. Even to the point, that some Gamma victims might confuse themselves as aggressors, and vice versa. That's just a speculation thought, LF confirmation.
> 
> It also might have something to do with traditional gender roles, as Fi is typically perceived as feminine, while Ti - and thinking in general - will be more masculine.
> 
> Some theory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics Romancing Styles


I don't think gamma SFs necessarily take less initiative. I think especially SEEs can take a lot of initiative, because their base TIM is about wanting to emotionally impress people around them. SEEs can literally sometimes walk up to random people they don't know and kind of go "Hi, I'm SEE, now like me for being awesome." It doesn't have to be that overt, but it does show up in these kinds of ways, both small and big. 

A great example of this that I can think of is from NGE where Asuka joins Shinji's class and the same day walks up to Rei because she knows that Rei is the first child to pilot the Evas and goes "Hi, I'm Asuka" and tries to really impress Rei with her demeanor. I can't find a good clip of it, unfortunately, but SEEs often do that. They have this odd way of being around people that may make them seem somewhat self-inflated. I think this is especially true for female ones as this behavior is more accepted and expected of them. It works on ILIs because it makes perfectly clear that they hold some interest in ILI, though the ILI will initially resist the SEE to come closer to them in this way. 



eastwin said:


> Indeed. I must admit that seems a bit off. As an IEI at least, I'm totally in control and aware ofthe attraction I could feel. I also know with accuracy the state of this feeling, and what it means. So there are no inital doubts about it. The feeling appear one day, and then evolve progressively, growing and becoming stronger. This part may be biased toward Gamma I guess.


Yeah, all right, that makes sense. I think for example delta STs can struggle with this too (not knowing whether they like someone else or is interested in someone else), and they're caretakers. 

It can take a lot of time for me to know whether I like someone or not in this kind of way, especially. 



> Well, maybe I phrased it badly. Once the SLE is interested in someone, he/she will directly take actions and initiatives. But at the same time, the SLE will request emotional expression and reactions from his/her partner. This is why the relationship can be settled up quite easily.
> 
> The IEI seems to be able to soften the SLE, with a general romantic attitude and polite behavior, as it is said in this long article. The IEI won't really reveal his own interest, even if he knows that it is a reciprocal interest. The SLE must take initiative, because as I said in my previous post, the willpower of the other person remains more important than the state of the relationship. On the other hand, the SLE will want to possess the victim even if he/she is unaware of one's attraction.
> 
> That's all I know unfortunately, but I must agree that the article must be a bit biased toward Gammas I guess. But overall the major victim/aggressor remain true, at least those based on Ni and Se.


All right, yeah, so the SLE still takes action. Does the IEI try to think to the SLE to take action though, or to encourage them in taking action? I assume it's similar to how ILIs hint to SEEs. Since you wrote that the IEI explains to the SLE how they feel, but if you overtly state what you feel, then the whole Se-Ni dynamic just falls apart since there's nothing for the Se ego to chase. 



Ixim said:


> Because there aren't four romance styles but 8?
> 
> Alpha SF
> Alpha NT
> Beta ST
> Beta NF
> Gamma SF
> Gamma NT
> Delta ST
> Delta NF
> 
> I see that you noticed that Beta ST and Gamma SF can't possibly have completely equal approach. And that is mostly true, yeah.


Yeah, there's also caregiver/infantile, but I wasn't so interested in that portion for the time-being, outside of delta STs having Fi valued. I'm trying to clear up how it works especially in beta, since my own understanding is very biased on my own experiences which is gamma.


----------



## Entropic

Distortions said:


> Why?
> 
> (Also, do you identify with having mommy issues?)


How do you even define having parental issues? I know Oedipus/Electra Complexes, but I think modern psychology has moved way ahead this simplified point of understanding the importance of object relations between caretaker-child. 

Actually, I think the attitude we harbor towards our primary caretaker as children reflects our enneagram type more at some level. You will for example very often see 8s usually idealizing one particular family member as being the connection to innocence (can be the mother, a beloved younger sister, one's child, etc.) and this connection was destroyed when the 8 was bereft of said member. The gender or even the role of the individual in question therefore doesn't matter. I've seen depictions where it's the mother, the sister, one's child, the father, the list goes on. The point is more what kind of emotional state the connection to that member represents, than the gender or even power relationship e.g. sibling, parent-child etc., does. 

I can't speak for other types because I haven't analyzed it nearly as much in detail though Naranjo enlists and makes some generic associations e.g. 7s have issues with their fathers, 1s reject their mothers, 4s envy their mothers etc., but that's the gist either way.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> Why?
> 
> (Also, do you identify with having mommy issues?)


*shrug* must be some difference between the two romance style pairs. Was either that, or one pair have same parent for both genders of each style

*shrug* hadn't thought about it much before. I know the male infantile description fits me and that the male infantile and female caregiver pair description sounds like a mother spending time with her son. No matter how strong, a person will on some level be closer to the father or mother figure. I was babysat from a young age into adolescence by a few different women: First was an LSE for first 4 years, then my grandmothers for the next 6ish. So, it could be the lack of my actual mother compared to time with babysitter, or simply having too much female time compared to male time, or that I was simply closer to my dad than my mom so leaned away in that way.

Got any correlations of your own? It's really just a model. If your Socionics is different than mine, you can mix the parents around in dichotomous ways that make sense to your own observations. Mine are based on most Js being js and Ps being ps, as well as INFP females generally having sexual tendencies that are usually called "daddy issues," male friends I know having their corresponding parent issues, and my ex and kids having their matching parent issues.


----------



## eastwin

Jeremy8419 said:


> @Entropic
> 
> If you say, "I love NH because...." and she says "I love Entropic because....", then the ellipses are what y'all are "buying and selling." That's what duality is. Both people want the same four things, in same volume, but with different specializations. I can make 100 units of Fi for 10 units of Te, and LSE can make 100 units of Te for 10 units of Fi. We can get Te or Fi from outside world, and make a killing! /high five


I doubt that it is so simple lol. A relationship isn't all about functions.


----------



## Jeremy8419

eastwin said:


> I doubt that it is so simple lol. A relationship isn't all about functions.


Blasphemy!

Well, there's still the actual contents of the functions/elements.


----------



## myst91

Jeremy8419 said:


> Blasphemy!
> 
> Well, there's still the actual contents of the functions/elements.


Hmm do you really not see more to relationships than socionics? What did you see about relationships before you got into socionics?


----------



## Lunatics

eastwin said:


> *About Victims in general, I just think that they are prone to think about the long-term side of a relationship. Ni-egos aren't perfectly connected to the present, and able to enjoy it. So imo, victims see the state of a relationship as being temporary.
> Even if Beta NF are able to know without much difficulty the state of a relationship, there is still a negative possibility of development that exists. The interest cannot stay at the same intensity for eternity, and Victims are probably overly-aware of that. That's why they require that the interest of their partneer remain perfectly known, and mastered. They only want things to last, and thus want to feel like they are being "attached" to the relationship by their partner (if you see what I mean here).
> 
> That's why they will probably become distant if they feel like the status of the relationship is unclear. They won't involve themselves in an unclear situation, because they will firstly see the bad consequences of their actions. Why engage a relationship if we don't know if it will last? That's why, they need to know that the relationship is serious, and that their partner will fight for it. Victims need to see this determination and willpower from their partner. Do you see what I mean? I think that the most important thing for a victim, isn't to know the state of the relationship, but rather to know the will of his/her partner.*
> 
> Victims are detached by nature, so they need to be attached to things.
> The difference between Gamma and Beta will probably be the initiation of emotionnality. I suppose that Gamma SF will be the one who will initiate in this aspect, but in the Beta quadra, NFs are actually initiating this part. Beta STs aren't really very aware about emotions and feelings in the relationship, so they will need from the NF to initiate the expression of emotions, and to clarify the state of their feelings. In a sense, the Beta NF have to insufflate the passion, in order to instaure intimacy and closeness in the relationship.
> I don't know if what I said makes sense. That's all I know about it for now.
> 
> I don't know much about Delta STs, I guess that they just want to feel like they are needed, and that's why the Infantile style is perfect for them. They probably count on their NF partner to reassure them about the relationship. Maybe Delta STs could enlighten us.


I love your post and especially the highlighted bit. *O_O* Have never seen anyone else until now depicting my love relationship/SO searching tendencies so well.

It definitely makes sense to me. However, now I wonder which types show the most willpower and determination in a relationship?? If that's type definable at all...


----------



## selena87

myst91 said:


> This is interesting.. Do you go for them because you recognize some feelings in you? I go for someone if I have physical attraction, in terms of romantic stuff it's as simple as that to me, of course assuming any other criteria I have that is relevant to the situation is also satisfied.


Yes I agree there are different kinds of interest, romantic interest, purely physical attraction, a desire to get something from them, or just curiosity. In this context Entropic was asking specifically about the Fi kind of interest and how that relates to action and hence my reply. I don't necessarily go for that alone though, as it is not very important on the grand scale of things.



> In terms of friendships I just happen to spend time with some people more because we have fun times, we do fun things, we talk about intellectual stuff, etc. That's how attachment develops, just from having fun etc together, I never evaluate it in terms of whether the person is likeable by me.
> 
> To call them something like e.g. a best friend, I determine that by level of trust which is defined by what I'm willing to tell them, to do with them, etc, and by the quality of experiences according to some criteria I have, including the person agreeing to the idea. If I actually declare someone a friend or a bf, etc, then I also attach a commitment to that declaration that determines priorities for action. It's all very logical, maybe there is some Fi role in it, I don't know.


In terms of the progression of the relationship, both friendship and romantically wise I do act naturally but there is a line that I don't cross, and the act of crossing it is an logical decision as well.

Basically people are put into categories: strangers, acquaintances, friends, people to avoid etc, and there are different standards of behaviour for each level. From the outside it looks like a person just jumps one day suddenly from one category to another, which is determined mainly by the frequency and quality of our interactions. That sounds pretty similar to you except that you seem to have more criteria.



> I guess we are similar there then. But just the act of going after the person first isn't decided in the same way for you as for me, it seems? I kind of make judgments much sooner where you just try to reflect afterwards. And for me they are not about feelings directly  (I'm not saying I don't have any feelings ever.. I just don't want to make the actual decisions in that way)


And yes I probably don't make judgements as soon or think as carefully as you, by the sounds of it haha XDDDD There were times that I assume too much and treat the person as a friend even though they don't agree to it (which I did not realize, and it made for quite an awkward and hilarious situation). Unfortunately I cannot answer more as I'm still trying to figure this out  introspection is hard


----------



## selena87

Lunatics said:


> I love your post and especially the highlighted bit. *O_O* Have never seen anyone else until now depicting my love relationship/SO searching tendencies so well.
> 
> It definitely makes sense to me. However, now I wonder which types show the most willpower and determination in a relationship?? If that's type definable at all...


Haha it is not surprising that you identify with his posts since you two are of the same type (even though he put ESE now as a joke)

As for your question, I do think that there are a lot of factors at play unrelated to type including how invested that person is/if they take the relationship seriously. But from a purely socionics viewpoint, victim types are best matched with aggressors, types with Se in their ego (SLE, LSI, SEE, ESI) who in theory will be reassuring enough to victim types in this context.

I recommend this site as it is very informative: Romance styles - Wikisocion


----------



## Lunatics

selena87 said:


> Haha it is not surprising that you identify with his posts since you two are of the same type (even though he put ESE now as a joke)
> 
> As for your question, I do think that there are a lot of factors at play unrelated to type including how invested that person is/if they take the relationship seriously. But from a purely socionics viewpoint, victim types are best matched with aggressors, types with Se in their ego (SLE, LSI, SEE, ESI) who in theory will be reassuring enough to victim types in this context.
> 
> I recommend this site as it is very informative: Romance styles - Wikisocion


Aww, thanks for replying!

My mom is MBTI ISFJ - she can be too suffocating when in a mood for cuddles or freaking scary when angry. >_< I suppose socionics play out differently than MBTI though.

It's funny how MBTI theorizes that NFs go best with other NFs or NTs where socionics matches NFs with SFs and STs. I was in a relationship with an ISFP for over 5 years and definitely do not wish to repeat that same mistake. However, as far as I am aware ISFP (SEI) and ESFP (SEE) are different from one another.


----------



## selena87

Lunatics said:


> Aww, thanks for replying!
> 
> My mom is MBTI ISFJ - she can be too suffocating when in a mood for cuddles or freaking scary when angry. >_< I suppose socionics play out differently than MBTI though.
> 
> It's funny how MBTI theorizes that NFs go best with other NFs or NTs where socionics matches NFs with SFs and STs. I was in a relationship with an ISFP for over 5 years and definitely do not wish to repeat that same mistake. However, as far as I am aware ISFP (SEI) and ESFP (SEE) are different from one another.


From what I remember MBTI advocates matching sensing/intuition pairing because it is supposedly the biggest divide that cannot be crossed. Personally I haven't felt much difficulty in terms of communication with intuitive types, but maybe they do on their side, I wouldn't know. XD

As for the categorization you are referring to (NFs, NTs, SFs, NTs) this term exists in socionics as well, it is called clubs.

Club - Wikisocion

Generally people of the same club share common interests and activities, while the socionics best matches will complement each other on their strengths and weaknesses and share common views and beliefs. I guess the best match for you depends on what you are looking for in a relationship personally.

On a side note, ISFP will be ESI in terms of functions but I can see how they might be SEI just going by surface descriptions. Well, that is a tricky subject :tongue:


----------



## Lunatics

selena87 said:


> From what I remember MBTI advocates matching sensing/intuition pairing because it is supposedly the biggest divide that cannot be crossed. Personally I haven't felt much difficulty in terms of communication with intuitive types, but maybe they do on their side, I wouldn't know. XD
> 
> As for the categorization you are referring to (NFs, NTs, SFs, NTs) this term exists in socionics as well, it is called clubs.
> 
> Club - Wikisocion
> 
> Generally people of the same club share common interests and activities, while the socionics best matches will complement each other on their strengths and weaknesses and share common views and beliefs. I guess the best match for you depends on what you are looking for in a relationship personally.
> 
> On a side note, ISFP will be ESI in terms of functions but I can see how they might be SEI just going by surface descriptions. Well, that is a tricky subject :tongue:


Ackk, socionics are confusing me so much. xD It's unreal.

And how come ISFP is ESI?? It says they are SEI according to this: Sensing Ethical Introtim - Wikisocion.

Well I look for someone who views love as the meaning of life, appreciates art, music, seeing new places, has drive and ambition, the most essential bit: wants me and sees me as an essential part of their life. LOL. I bet you cannot pinpoint this individual with just pure socionics or MBTI. *sigh* When I thought I can get the formula for finding an ever-lasting love and forming the perfect harmonious bond.. Nope, it's impossible. T_T


----------



## eastwin

Lunatics said:


> Ackk, socionics are confusing me so much. xD It's unreal.
> 
> And how come ISFP is ESI?? It says they are SEI according to this: Sensing Ethical Introtim - Wikisocion.
> 
> Well I look for someone who views love as the meaning of life, appreciates art, music, seeing new places, has drive and ambition, the most essential bit: wants me and sees me as an essential part of their life. LOL. I bet you cannot pinpoint this individual with just pure socionics or MBTI. *sigh* When I thought I can get the formula for finding an ever-lasting love and forming the perfect harmonious bond.. Nope, it's impossible. T_T


The j/p dichotomy is reversed in Socionics for introverts.

Because MBTI count the *first extroverted function* as being the one who will indicate the j/p orientation, while Socionics will use the base/leading function as the one who will do it.

But some people don't agree about it, that's why it's better to forget the 4 letters code, and use the 3 letters code instead.
ESI is Fi-Se, SEI is Si-Fe, that's all.

I recommend you to forget about Sociotypes and stuff when building a relationship though. The most important thing in a relationship is to accept and understand your partner, no matter the differences or valued functions. For example most of my friends IRL are Delta, that doesn't mean that we don't accept each other because of our Fi/Fe difference.
And same about romance, the key is communication. All relationships require time and work anyway, even duality or relationships with people of your quadra.


----------



## Entropic

Lunatics said:


> Ackk, socionics are confusing me so much. xD It's unreal.
> 
> And how come ISFP is ESI?? It says they are SEI according to this: Sensing Ethical Introtim - Wikisocion.
> 
> Well I look for someone who views love as the meaning of life, appreciates art, music, seeing new places, has drive and ambition, the most essential bit: wants me and sees me as an essential part of their life. LOL. I bet you cannot pinpoint this individual with just pure socionics or MBTI. *sigh* When I thought I can get the formula for finding an ever-lasting love and forming the perfect harmonious bond.. Nope, it's impossible. T_T


I agree with @eastwin by and large, though what you wrote here is Fe and Se valuing. Most of all, the focus on someone with drive and ambition sounds very much like an SLE to me. Lots of Fe from you in this post (views love as the meaning of life, forming the perfect harmonious bond). These are Fe concepts, not Fi. Fi would probably express the same desires more in terms of someone who sees and loves them for who they are, capable of understanding their personal needs/wants/desires. It's introverted because it's focused on the emotional reality inside the self, rather than outside e.g. harmonious bond. Fi types highly devalue stuff like that.


----------



## Lunatics

@eastwin and @Entropic I agree with both of you.

I was mainly trying to get my head around socionics and how it fits with people's personalities and love chemistry. Communication and the willingness to compromise are key to any type of relationship. The description I gave for the person I'd possibly develop a love interest for is what I only seek on the surface. Naturally the bond needs to stem from much a deeper perspective. One of the main issues I've encountered in my past relationships, including the one with the MBTI ISFP guy, was that my partner didn't care about me as much and didn't try to or couldn't understand me to the level I was caring for them and tried to understand them and suit their needs. Therefore, I want to avoid such a situation again at all costs.

However, I have no idea what my actual ideal type of guy would be behind just the general qualities I seek. There's so much more to a person and I hate being left in the dark and not knowing what the future holds.

My MBTI is INFJ but the socionics I ascribe to the most are IEI (INFp). I presume that's normal then?


----------



## myst91

selena87 said:


> Yes I agree there are different kinds of interest, romantic interest, purely physical attraction, a desire to get something from them, or just curiosity. In this context Entropic was asking specifically about the Fi kind of interest and how that relates to action and hence my reply. I don't necessarily go for that alone though, as it is not very important on the grand scale of things.
> 
> In terms of the progression of the relationship, both friendship and romantically wise I do act naturally but there is a line that I don't cross, and the act of crossing it is an logical decision as well.
> 
> Basically people are put into categories: strangers, acquaintances, friends, people to avoid etc, and there are different standards of behaviour for each level. From the outside it looks like a person just jumps one day suddenly from one category to another, which is determined mainly by the frequency and quality of our interactions. That sounds pretty similar to you except that you seem to have more criteria.


Yeah we are similar here. I guess I could also arrive at the Fi aspect by reviewing and analysing what I do, it's quite a roundabout way to arrive at it  I'm not quite sure that is Fi per se, actually. It would probably be Fi more directly if I tried to reflect on how the person's behaviour and traits affect me personally but it is hard to do that and I cannot maintain judgments made in that area. It doesn't "stick". Because it doesn't make enough sense 




> And yes I probably don't make judgements as soon or think as carefully as you, by the sounds of it haha XDDDD There were times that I assume too much and treat the person as a friend even though they don't agree to it (which I did not realize, and it made for quite an awkward and hilarious situation). Unfortunately I cannot answer more as I'm still trying to figure this out  introspection is hard


Right that sounds pretty much Fi PoLR. I don't think I ever made this mistake as I try to verify such things. Also because I default to a large distance by default so it has to be actively closed first during which process I will be watching closely as to what is happening (mostly in a Fe/Ti sense). I guess for you it involves 2D Fe as well while I am much more cautious in that area.


----------



## Jeremy8419

myst91 said:


> Hmm do you really not see more to relationships than socionics? What did you see about relationships before you got into socionics?


? We're on a socionics forum discussing socionics. The goal of socionics is to explain everything about relationships that isn't individualistic


----------



## Jeremy8419

eastwin said:


> The j/p dichotomy is reversed in Socionics for introverts.
> 
> Because MBTI count the *first extroverted function* as being the one who will indicate the j/p orientation, while Socionics will use the base/leading function as the one who will do it.
> 
> But some people don't agree about it, that's why it's better to forget the 4 letters code, and use the 3 letters code instead.
> ESI is Fi-Se, SEI is Si-Fe, that's all.


This doesn't seem odd to you? To say, basically, "there are two sides to this argument, so it is best to choose my side"?


----------



## eastwin

Jeremy8419 said:


> This doesn't seem odd to you? To say, basically, "there are two sides to this argument, so it is best to choose my side"?


Huh no, that's not what I said. On the contrary, as there are two sides on the argument, I don't choose any side. I just refer to a type according to their cognition (eg Fi-Se and Si-Fe), and the 3 letter code is fine with that. When the 4 letter code force you to chose a side because you have to mention the j/p dichotomy (and that's why I decided to forget it).


----------



## Jeremy8419

eastwin said:


> Huh no, that's not what I said. On the contrary, as there are two sides on the argument, I don't choose any side. I just refer to a type according to their cognition (eg Fi-Se and Si-Fe), and the 3 letter code is fine with that. When the 4 letter code force you to chose a side because you have to mention the j/p dichotomy (and that's why I decided to forget it).


Ah, okay. The first couple of paragraphs leading into the third made it seem like a loaded question.


----------



## myst91

Jeremy8419 said:


> ? We're on a socionics forum discussing socionics. The goal of socionics is to explain everything about relationships that isn't individualistic


So you otherwise are fine with seeing relationships without socionics too?


----------



## Jeremy8419

myst91 said:


> So you otherwise are fine with seeing relationships without socionics too?


I don't even know the current girl I'm seeing's type.

I do try and scrutinize everything through Socionics, but that is due to being on these forums and wanting to help. Per my resource thread, I'm unconsciously activated to improve facilities of operations, and the forums strike me as an impractical mess that doesn't provide people with the right tools they need. I have a tendency to take on others lives for long periods until they get what they need.


----------



## Typhon

Entropic said:


> For example, consider this about the aggressor style:
> 
> 
> 
> But Fi PoLR means poor ability to tell whether you like or dislike someone, especially in terms of intimate relationships, so how does this play out with being an aggressor?
> 
> Furthermore:
> 
> 
> 
> The underlined and bolded part, for example, how does an SLE know what preferences they have when they have Fi PoLR?
> 
> Then, for victim, we have:
> 
> 
> 
> But if you have access to strong Fi which operates on like/dislike and attraction/repulsion, shouldn't it be easier to tell whether you are interested in someone else or not?


I think its important to distinguish between "interest" here and understanding a relationship. "Interest" more likely relates to sexual desire, or physical attraction based on looks, understanding a relationship is about understand the intricacies of said relationships, not necessarily romantic btw.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> Victim means they want to be dominated. If they aren't being dominated, they don't like you. Them asking about you liking them or whatnot is actually them saying they don't like you. Fi-Se wants to isolate you from others. Ti-Se wants to create a structure/family/whatever to keep you put.


Actually I wonder if it is not that victim types tend to want to develop an environment where if you do not predict future and do Ni you will die. And that aggressor want, paradoxically, develop a culture and environment where they are the victim and everyone is victim. The thing is that Victim very easy play the victim card and see the future possibility and if they will turn out to be victim they avoid it thus very rarely actually are the victim. 

Si ego type seem to be into having pranks going on all the time. Ne seem to want to be taking care of people. It seem so opposite in real life examples.


----------



## piano

Wolfskralle said:


> I was under the impression, that classic victim/agressor description relate more to Beta, than Gamma. Betas have Se-, hence are more openly aggressive and confrontational, while Gammas, with Se+, are typically more defensive with their Se. I understand Gamma aggressive romance style more like an indirect act of "aggression"/ethical manipulation, than open expression of force of will, as it is shown by Beta ST's.
> Kinda opposite of what eastwin have said, I understand Gemma aggressors as less likely to initiate contact, than their Beta counterparts. Even to the point, that some Gamma victims might confuse themselves as aggressors, and vice versa. That's just a speculation thought, LF confirmation.
> 
> It also might have something to do with traditional gender roles, as Fi is typically perceived as feminine, while Ti - and thinking in general - will be more masculine.
> 
> Some theory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics Romancing Styles


there doesn't seem to be a romance style pertaining to bat-shit crazy behavior though? but seriously, i've always thought these were super neat. i know for certain the descriptions for caregiver and childlike don't fit me. i am torn between aggressor and victim. i think probably victim but i need more info... which is why i'm bumping this thread.


----------



## myst91

i cant play the piano said:


> there doesn't seem to be a romance style pertaining to bat-shit crazy behavior though? but seriously, i've always thought these were super neat. i know for certain the descriptions for caregiver and childlike don't fit me. i am torn between aggressor and victim. i think probably victim but i need more info... which is why i'm bumping this thread.


Aggressor wouldn't consider Victim. Victim can look like either.


----------



## Vermillion

myst91 said:


> Aggressor wouldn't consider Victim. Victim can look like either.


Why is that so impossible? It's a description of romance styles, it's bound to be vague and not account for all individual preferences.


----------



## counterintuitive

Noob question: *what actually is psychological distance?* :crazy:

I thought everyone gauged closeness of relationships based on factors such as how long you've known the person, how much time you spend together, what kind of information you share/divulge to one another, what activities you do together, etc. I thought that was it?

Can other people actually like..."sense" closeness directly?

Ofc I can read the person's outward behavior, like if they're suddenly standoffish with me, their tone changes, they start expressing differently, etc-- that might indicate I've crossed a line of some kind. But I think that is more Fe, since I'm assessing based on their emotional expressiveness.

Lol, tbh in all the friendships/acquaintenceships/whatevers I've had, I've never actually _felt_ "close" to someone? There are definitely people about whom I know more information and I know how they tend to react to things, etc, but that's it. All my friendships are just superficial/fun/interesting/entertaining, which is fine for now, but I might want to have a closer relationship at some point, and I don't know how to form one? :crazy:

Lol, sometimes I wonder if there isn't some truth to this type shit after all. :tongue:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

i cant play the piano said:


> there doesn't seem to be a romance style pertaining to bat-shit crazy behavior though? but seriously, i've always thought these were super neat. i know for certain the descriptions for caregiver and childlike don't fit me. i am torn between aggressor and victim. i think probably victim but i need more info... which is why i'm bumping this thread.


I had the same problem. I think part of it is that I don't want to be a "victim". I certainly don't feel like an Aggressor, though, even though I initiate when I want a relationship, yet at the same time I wait for a loooong while first and mull it all over. And I am never totally sure about my own exact level of interest, and have to peg it down. It took me awhile, but I finally accepted the victim category.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Entropic said:


> Idk, I kind of feel like perhaps the aggressor/victim article is biased towards gamma, or maybe I'm biased.


The agressor/victim complex is least noticeable for Gammas. NTJs tend to be pseudo agressors, so the dynamic is not the quintessential definition of an agressor/victim. In an agressor, Fi is a kind of weakness, and many ESFPs try to shoo it completely away, to no avail. The 'victim' in Gamma has viscious, bitch slap, Te, and the ENTJ has the terrifying Te-Se combination. 

Contrast with Betas, Betas are the typical victim/agressor relationship, where the two explicit functions (based on reality) Se and Ti are blocked with the agressors, and the implicit, dreamy functions of Ni-Fe are blocked with the victim. 

In a weird kind of way both dyads reach a perfect balance, However, only one truly aligns with the romance style designated to them.


----------



## Typhon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> The agressor/victim complex is least noticeable for Gammas. NTJs tend to be pseudo agressors, so the dynamic is not the quintessential definition of an agressor/victim. In an agressor, Fi is a kind of weakness, and many ESFPs try to shoo it completely away, to no avail. The 'victim' in Gamma has viscious, bitch slap worthy, Te, and the ENTJ has the terrifying Te-Se combination.
> 
> Contrast with Betas, Betas are the typical victim/agressor relationship, where the two explicit functions (based on reality) Se and Ti are blocked with the agressors, and the implicit, dreamy functions of Ni-Fe are blocked with the victim.
> 
> In a weird kind of way both dyads reach a perfect balance, However, only one truly aligns with the romance style that is designated to them.


I think that Gulenko's sexual attitudes (victim, agressor etc) are about how you see yourself, whereas the other romance styles( pseudo agressor, conqueror etc) are about how others see you or how you behave. 

So its perfectly coherent for a gamma NT to act in a somewhat aggressive manner (at least some do, sometimes, not all of them, not sure how much I agree with these) and yet perceive themselves as victim within a romantic relation. Also, some victim types (beta or gamma) can act aggressive due to feeling unfairly positioned in a relationship ( again, I sinerely believe these are just impressions, since they are impressions that stem from the irrational functions, they can contradict what reason tels us about ourselves, our position, or situation). 

Personally, I'm not sure how much I agree with the set of descriptions that type me as "pseudo aggressor".


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Typhon said:


> I think that Gulenko's sexual attitudes (victim, agressor etc) are about how you see yourself, whereas the other romance styles( pseudo agressor, conqueror etc) are about how others see you or how you behave.
> 
> So its perfectly coherent for a gamma NT to act in a somewhat aggressive manner (at least some do, sometimes, not all of them, not sure how much I agree with these) and yet perceive themselves as victim within a romantic relation. Also, some victim types (beta or gamma) can act aggressive due to feeling unfairly positioned in a relationship ( again, I sinerely believe these are just impressions, since they are impressions that stem from the irrational functions, they can contradict what reason tels us about ourselves, our position, or situation).
> 
> Personally, I'm not sure how much I agree with the set of descriptions that type me as "pseudo aggressor".


Ah ok, so you're saying the reason why Gamma victims Te bitchslap is because they feel like a genuine victims. People only see the outward agression, that's where the label pseudo agressor comes in, but the NTJ is coming from a place of percieved victimhood.

Why don't you agree with the label 'pseudo agressor' for you? 

What do you think about the employee (NTJ) and employer (SFP) labels?


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Entropic said:


> However, Beta NFs have high dimensional Fi and would therefore logically speaking have an easier time telling what other people think about them. *How does the victim style of feeling insecure in knowing what the other people think about them in terms of interest play out in this regard?* Especially seeing how beta NFs are great at understanding the future development of relationships?


Essentially the common element binding the victims of both quadras, is Ni. That means the _insecurity_ is repressed/weak Se. The insecurity with victims in Beta lies in the logic of the _moment_. We know what others feel about us, and where things will head, but that requires action in the moment (Se-Ti). I think thats what the whole victim thing is about, fear from Se. The whole dynamic of relationships, and dates, is really an SF dynamic, so you're lucky you have a dual, especially one with powerful Fe, to take charge in these situations. All the movies promote SF relationships, and the Beta quadra are neither. 



Entropic said:


> Conversely, what about delta STs that also value Fi and have Fe in the superego block but are caretakers? Don't they too feel insecure about knowing what other people think of them and where they stand in relation to the other and how to deal with that social space between people? How do delta STs read that from their duals?


Yes, they do feel insecure with how they stand, especially the ISTJ. Delta STs are described as "Teachers" and their duals as "Students". It's kind of a formal, repressed, environment. Deltas are very mellow. Again, it's much easier to know how the ENFP feels about you because that Fe, however, that has nothing to do with the teacher student relationship. You're bringing in feeling when talking about relationships, but actually, romance styles have absolutely nothing to do with feeling. (You 'feel' like a victim, but that's because you are. It has nothing to do with the position of your Fi. If you had Si in your dominant you would not 'feel' like a victim, you would 'feel' like a caregiver/teacher. You feel like a victim because you're dominant Ni.) The dynamic lies between the Si and Ne. ISTJs are afraid of taking risks, fear of the future, over reacting to small things, the ENFP calms them, and can get them out of their skin and excite them.



Entropic said:


> Tl;dr I don't understand the difference between Fi (in the super-id) and the victim type dichotomy.


Fi has nothing to do with being a victim. Victim has everything to do with Ni-Se.


----------



## Typhon

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Ah ok, so you're saying the reason why Gamma victims Te bitchslap is because they feel like a genuine victims. People only see the outward agression, that's where the label pseudo agressor comes in, but the NTJ is coming from a place of percieved victimhood.
> 
> Why don't you agree with the label 'pseudo agressor' for you?
> 
> What do you think about the employee (NTJ) and employer (SFP) labels?


Before I answer your questions I have to ask; what do you mean when you say "Te bitchslap"? What does it mean, and why do you think gamma NTs do it more than others?

Actually, I will kind of address your questions, where I can. I reject the label "pseudo-agressor" because I don't know what it means. It seems vague. The labels "employee" (gamma NT) and "employer" (Gamma SF) seem reversed: I think Gamma NTs are employers, since they are more likely to start their own business than other types in the socion. All Gamma types are actually including the SF types. That isn't to say every person who owns or starts a business is a gamma, or that every gamma is like this, but I think gammas are more likely to enjoy work when it is from their own initiative, rather than say, doing a job as an employee at the same place for 30 years (which ST types are more likely to not mind,at least the rational types). So I gues all gammas are more like employers than employees, lol.


----------



## Figure

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Ah ok, so you're saying the reason why Gamma victims Te bitchslap is because they feel like a genuine victims. People only see the outward agression, that's where the label pseudo agressor comes in, but the NTJ is coming from a place of percieved victimhood.
> 
> Why don't you agree with the label 'pseudo agressor' for you?
> 
> What do you think about the employee (NTJ) and employer (SFP) labels?


I don't actually really like the term "victim." I think the Victim controls the Aggressor just as much if not more. In my opinion it's more a game of trapper and animal than victim aggressor, at least for Gamma. The below is how I see it for Gamma - it is likely different for Beta: 

The Te bitchslap at least for me is, ironically, only used with people I'm interested in. If I'm not doing it to you, I'm not interested, although I may like you a lot as a close friend. It typically takes the form of extremely snide, sometimes borderline mean personalized comments, usually about how ineffective you are in doing/not doing something. It's not in a SUPER serious way, and not done with graveness, more just mocking, like "you couldn't do that." The unconscious intent is to basically goad you into proving me wrong by using Se, or alternatively to just try and make me feel a certain way with Fi either of which would make me more impressed by your ability and therefore put in my place, at least temporarily. I would otherwise just continue being an arrogant bastard without any respect for other peoples' wills, seeing as they don't demonstrate them XD 

Being on the receiving end of that kind of effort is what makes us "victims" in the socionics sense of the word. Gulenko is an LII so I'm not surprised he doesn't get it, as Se-devaluing. However, the Aggressor's so called force on the Victim does very little to actually victimize the victim in the usual sense of leaving someone in a worse state. At least for Gamma, it's putting yourself in a position where an Aggressor will impose something of their desire - at which point the Victim can either endlessly abide to, or resist and provoke further effort. The Victim _very much_ gets what they want if not more from the Aggressor, typically expending no effort at all in doing so.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Figure said:


> I don't actually really like the term "victim." I think the Victim controls the Aggressor just as much if not more. In my opinion it's more a game of trapper and animal than victim aggressor, at least for Gamma. The below is how I see it for Gamma - it is likely different for Beta:
> 
> The Te bitchslap at least for me is, ironically, only used with people I'm interested in. If I'm not doing it to you, I'm not interested, although I may like you a lot as a close friend. It typically takes the form of extremely snide, sometimes borderline mean personalized comments, usually about how ineffective you are in doing/not doing something. It's not in a SUPER serious way, and not done with graveness, more just mocking, like "you couldn't do that." The unconscious intent is to basically goad you into proving me wrong by using Se, or alternatively to just try and make me feel a certain way with Fi either of which would make me more impressed by your ability and therefore put in my place, at least temporarily. I would otherwise just continue being an arrogant bastard without any respect for other peoples' wills, seeing as they don't demonstrate them XD
> 
> Being on the receiving end of that kind of effort is what makes us "victims" in the socionics sense of the word. Gulenko is an LII so I'm not surprised he doesn't get it, as Se-devaluing. However, the Aggressor's so called force on the Victim does very little to actually victimize the victim in the usual sense of leaving someone in a worse state. At least for Gamma, it's putting yourself in a position where an Aggressor will impose something of their desire - at which point the Victim can either endlessly abide to, or resist and provoke further effort. The Victim _very much_ gets what they want if not more from the Aggressor, typically expending no effort at all in doing so.


What make it important is it open up a new way of thinking of it than just 'if u get a dopamine rush then you want to repeat this behavior'. But understanding erotic wants work in a other way.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

@Figure
Perhaps some anecdotal examples of "Victim" behavior might help? I'm having a hard time grasping this, myself. Also, how might Beta Victim differ, do you think?

For me, it doesn't help that I have only been in one relationship. I have a few stories from that, but it all basically boils down to frustration on my end that she didn't take the reins.

I remember one time I straight up told her how much effort I had gone to in order to get a date set up properly, since our schedules weren't meshing. I did this after it became apparent how little effort she had put in, in a fit of frustration and irritation. I wanted her to acknowledge this and then try harder. I wanted some initiative and energy, and for things to ramp up - but I didn't want to do it myself! Instead, she became sad and offered a gentle hug and an apology. I found this even more frustrating, for reasons I can't quite articulate. I wound up putting in more energy and time trying to get her to at least equal me, at least keep up, but what I wanted was for her to be doing that part!

I learned a lot about what I really want in a partner over the course of that relationship, and a biggie is I want a strong partner that will put forth the effort. I want to be chased, even though that's not what society tells me I am supposed to want. I want to be mysterious and elusive. What dynamic there will be will vary greatly depending on the partner I think; I've taken various approaches to asking girls out, from kind and gentle seeming to gruff and direct, depending on who it is. But only the one ever answered affirmatively, so my pool of experience is not much.

Blargh. Anyway, I take that as "Victim" behavior on my part. I'd like to learn more, though.


----------



## Entropic

Well, from another outsider perspective, victims probably seem like victims because of how "mean" the aggressors can be to them and the victims just take it as if they are "victims" of abuse or something, like being physically kicked, dragged or slapped. Victims are actually the ones in power though, imo, because they always manipulate the aggressor in the direction the victim wants the aggressor to take.


----------



## cyamitide

Figure said:


> The Te bitchslap at least for me is, ironically, only used with people I'm interested in. If I'm not doing it to you, I'm not interested, although I may like you a lot as a close friend. It typically takes the form of extremely snide, sometimes borderline mean personalized comments, usually about how ineffective you are in doing/not doing something. It's not in a SUPER serious way, and not done with graveness, more just mocking, like "you couldn't do that." The unconscious intent is to basically goad you into proving me wrong by using Se, or alternatively to just try and make me feel a certain way with Fi either of which would make me more impressed by your ability and therefore put in my place, at least temporarily. I would otherwise just continue being an arrogant bastard without any respect for other peoples' wills, seeing as they don't demonstrate them XD
> 
> Being on the receiving end of that kind of effort is what makes us "victims" in the socionics sense of the word. Gulenko is an LII so I'm not surprised he doesn't get it, as Se-devaluing. However, the Aggressor's so called force on the Victim does very little to actually victimize the victim in the usual sense of leaving someone in a worse state. At least for Gamma, it's putting yourself in a position where an Aggressor will impose something of their desire - at which point the Victim can either endlessly abide to, or resist and provoke further effort. The Victim _very much_ gets what they want if not more from the Aggressor, typically expending no effort at all in doing so.





Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Also, how might Beta Victim differ, do you think?


The Beta EIE-LSI duality is similar to what Figure has described of ILI and SEE. The EIE provokes the LSI to act by bleak predictions or high necessity, and feels satisfied when he gets what he was looking for, similar to the ILI. The IEI-SLE interaction is different because the "aggressor" here is a negativist type SLE, and it is negativists who have more doubts, who draw attention to problems and shortcomings (including in their duals), that the IEI as a positivist type has the challenge of dispelling. This is also relevant for Gamma rational dyad, ESI-LIE, where the "aggressor" is not only a negativist type but also an introvert, which changes the victim-aggressor dynamics, making the "aggressor" types in both these couples be more victim-like in sense of going through doubts, while the "victim" types more aggressor-like in sense of being more affirmative.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Entropic said:


> Well, from another outsider perspective, victims probably seem like victims because of how "mean" the aggressors can be to them and the victims just take it as if they are "victims" of abuse or something, like being physically kicked, dragged or slapped. Victims are actually the ones in power though, imo, because they always manipulate the aggressor in the direction the victim wants the aggressor to take.


I think the victim will always feel like a victim as long as he's in Ni. Ni is in your head, away from reality, we feel like life happens to us. We're always the victims to life. Se is in control, and sees life for what it is, in the moment, whereas we're in our heads, contemplating, triangulating, seperated, and inert from reality. We're not suited to understand (percieve) life in its purest form.

Just to apply your theory, ESTJs have Fi in super-id, would you call them victims? They have 4D Se, demonstrative function, are they victims?


----------



## Entropic

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I think the victim will always feel like a victim as long as he's in Ni. Ni is in your head, away from reality, we feel like life happens to us. We're always the victims to life. Se is in control, and sees life for what it is, in the moment, whereas we're in our heads, contemplating, triangulating, seperated, and inert from reality. We're not suited to understand (percieve) life in its purest form.
> 
> Just to apply your theory, ESTJs have Fi in super-id, would you call them victims? They have 4D Se, demonstrative function, are they victims?


What has Fi even got anything to do with what I wrote? Exactly, it doesn't. I explained why outsiders may think victims look like victims, not realizing where the power dynamic actually lies. My post explicitly dealt with the decisive quadras not judicious. EIIs don't physically impose themselves on LSEs so what you wrote doesn't even remotely apply to the context of my post.Victims have a lot of power so in this regard I don't feel like a victim at all.

Also, your assertion that Ni bases aren't suited to perceive life in its fullest form is ridiculous. Se is no less pure than Ni or even any other IE. I mean, you're still alive aren't you? Your ability to predict the future is a very important skill to have when managing life. That's the point of duality lol. Victims aren't victims to life and need some great Se base to save their poor souls from dying. I think you're internalizing the idea of the victim description way too much as a part of your identity.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

@Entropic Fi has everything to do with what you originally wrote. You were unable to distinguish the 'victim' description with Fi in superid.


Entropic said:


> I don't understand the difference between Fi (in the super-id) and the victim type dichotomy.


Your post did not explicitly deal with the decisive quadras for you wrote:


Entropic said:


> Conversely, what about delta STs that also value Fi and have Fe in the superego block but are caretakers? Don't they too feel insecure about knowing what other people think of them and where they stand in relation to the other and how to deal with that social space between people? How do delta STs read that from their duals?


I don't know what your point about EIIs not imposing themselves on LSEs disproves for that's exactly what I said. I was addressing your generalised 'Fi-victim dichotomie' which directly prior to it had a paragraph worth of Delta ST questions, and reminded you that the LSE has 4D Se, and by no means takes on the role of a victim.

Ni bases are not suited to capitalise on life it's _literal_ form. Our 1D Se vs 4D and 3D which is inherent in of majority of society, does not stack up greatly.

I'm not devaluing our Ni, I think Ni is beautiful. Nor am I taking on too much of the identity of the victim. I have naturally taken on, rebelled against, and actively fought against this identity. However, when I'm just being myself, those around me percieve me as a victim.

Just wanted to clarify your premise. We do have power over Se, we're not true victims in the purest form, we can manipulate, however, so can they. Duality is equality. The term 'suggestive function' could not be any more perfect. We own their weakness, they own ours.


----------



## Entropic

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> @Entropic Fi has everything to do with what you originally wrote. You were unable to distinguish the 'victim' description with Fi in superid.
> 
> Your post did not explicitly deal with the decisive quadras for you wrote:
> 
> I don't know what your point about EIIs not imposing themselves on LSEs disproves for that's exactly what I said. I was addressing your generalised 'Fi-victim dichotomie' which directly prior to it had a paragraph worth of Delta ST questions, and reminded you that the LSE has 4D Se, and by no means takes on the role of a victim.
> 
> Ni bases are not suited to capitalise on life it's _literal_ form. Our 1D Se vs 4D and 3D which is inherent in of majority of society, does not stack up greatly.
> 
> I'm not devaluing our Ni, I think Ni is beautiful. Nor am I taking on too much of the identity of the victim. I have naturally taken on, rebelled against, and actively fought against this identity. However, when I'm just being myself, those around me percieve me as a victim.
> 
> Just wanted to clarify your premise. We do have power over Se, we're not true victims in the purest form, we can manipulate, however, so can they. Duality is equality. The term 'suggestive function' could not be any more perfect. We own their weakness, they own ours.


But the last post I wrote that you quoted had NOTHING to do with Fi so don't even try to shift goalposts by taking what I wrote out of context. I was making a general commentary and this comment stands on its own unrelated to everything else I wrote so stop connect the two. They aren't connected and arguing that they are is intellectually disingenuous.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts

Entropic said:


> But the last post I wrote that you quoted had NOTHING to do with Fi so don't even try to shift goalposts by taking what I wrote out of context. I was making a general commentary and this comment stands on its own unrelated to everything else I wrote so stop connect the two. They aren't connected and arguing that they are is intellectually disingenuous.


Forgive me for addressing the original purpose of this thread to the person who started it. 

Addressing that specific comment,


Entropic said:


> Victims are actually the ones in power though, imo, because they always manipulate the aggressor in the direction the victim wants the aggressor to take


No, we're not the ones who're 'actually in power'. We're simply ones who offer the flipside perspective and are more suited to deal with manifestations of that information element. In times when SLE is unsure of the long term implications of her actions, I make it crystal clear. When I'm unsure of acting in the moment, she's the voice of reason. There is a balance. The way you put it across sounds like we're crafty little demons who pretend to let them have control, but in reality we're the ones pulling the strings.


----------



## Charus

This thread is load of bullshit, especialy at the start. Since when this fucking system should dictate that I need to be dominated by a dominatrix woman just because I have Ni in ego block? I'm not some submissive beta male, have my middle finger for this shit theory.


----------

