personal ambition vs. competition?

[barbad0s]

I know. Was just pointing out that one doesn't rely exclusively on one function or another. Fe people aren't always about external "ought to be" and Fi people aren't always about internal authenticity. Both can flip-flop to a degree.

I skimmed your story at first and just actually read it now. Strangely, the first thing I got out of it was, "The dog is trying to bite the rescuers so that they will leave the dog be in order to not drown themselves." But obviously that was completely not what it was supposed to be doing in order to illustrate your point lol.

Anyway, idk if this is part of the "you know", but what I was hoping to get across as part of my point was that when people aren't acting in line with their function, it's usually not supposed to be a result of the opposite function coming in. As in, not only are Fe people not about x which you guys determined (in this case, feeling for others without selectivity) and Fi people not about y which you guys determined (in this case, selectively caring about people or caring primarily for the self (it is NOT about that at all)), but when they *aren't* always acting according to what is normal for them (which was inaccurately identified here), it's not a result of Fe flip-flopping to Fi, or Fi flip-flopping to Fe. The functions don't have anything to do with personal decisions like that; they don't have anything to do with broad personality traits or behaviours such as "caring", "selfish", "indiscriminate", etc.

 

[sprinkles]

I skimmed your story at first and just actually read it now. Strangely, the first thing I got out of it was, "The dog is trying to bite the rescuers so that they will leave the dog be in order to not drown themselves." But obviously that was completely not what it was supposed to be doing in order to illustrate your point lol.

Anyway, idk if this is part of the "you know", but what I was hoping to get across as part of my point was that when people aren't acting in line with their function, it's usually not supposed to be a result of the opposite function coming in. As in, not only are Fe people not about x which you guys determined (in this case, feeling for others without selectivity) and Fi people not about y which you guys determined (in this case, selectively caring about people or caring primarily for the self (it is NOT about that at all)), but when they *aren't* always acting according to what is normal for them (which was inaccurately identified here), it's not a result of Fe flip-flopping to Fi, or Fi flip-flopping to Fe. The functions don't have anything to do with personal decisions like that; they don't have anything to do with broad personality traits or behaviours such as "caring", "selfish", "indiscriminate", etc.

Sure. I just call things by what fits them though. I'm looking at it as your ability to use mind tools to gain useful perspectives, regardless of motivations. The switch is not a conscious one.

Probably the easiest way to understand my point is to look at Se vs Si. If Se is looking at the immediate experience and facts, and Si is looking at the past experience and how it relates to now an the future, how can one get along without - at some point - using both of them?

If being Se means you can never use the opposite function, or that if you do something that appears opposite of Se but is actually not Si for some reason, then what's the point of having a label? It's like saying using past experience and feeling the memories is only Si if you're defined as Si dominant otherwise it's something else, but it would be Si if you are Si dominant. It would be backwards, effectively naming the trait according to the archetype instead of constructing the archetype from the traits.

Edit:
Or in other words, I didn't mean that your dominant function flips, nor did I mean that your preferred function flips. That would change the archetype.
What I'm saying is that, for a moment, one can resort to a non-preferred function, temporarily, but will revert back to their typical MO afterwards.

 

[barbad0s]

If being Se means you can never use the opposite function, or that if you do something that appears opposite of Se but is actually not Si for some reason, then what's the point of having a label? It's like saying using past experience and feeling the memories is only Si if you're defined as Si dominant otherwise it's something else, but it would be Si if you are Si dominant. It would be backwards, effectively naming the trait according to the archetype instead of constructing the archetype from the traits.

The functions aren't as simplistic as "my feelings", "your feelings", "immediate experience", "past experience", etc., that's why. Everyone experiences all of these things, and just because everyone does experience all of these things, doesn't mean that each of these perspectives is the result of a function. To be an Se user vs. an Si user is somewhat more complicated than that. Especially from a socionics point of view, it's mostly about your relationship with the function i.e. the nuances of how you use the function. This is why both Si doms and non Si doms can experience memories, as per your example... Si is what could potentially cause the behaviour of drawing up memories, but the drawing up of memories itself isn't Si, because anyone can do that--but not necessarily for an Si dom "reason" or with the Si dom "method". So in that sense the traits (functions or functions relations) are kind of constructed, or have been identified or "found out", from pre-existing personality archetypes. But what I am also trying to say here is that functions =/= "personality traits".

 

[sprinkles]

The functions aren't as simplistic as "my feelings", "your feelings", "immediate experience", "past experience", etc., that's why. Everyone experiences all of these things, and just because everyone does experience all of these things, doesn't mean that each of these perspectives is the result of a function. To be an Se user vs. an Si user is somewhat more complicated than that. Especially from a socionics point of view, it's mostly about your relationship with the function i.e. the nuances of how you use the function. This is why both Si doms and non Si doms can experience memories, as per your example... Si is what could potentially cause the behaviour of drawing up memories, but the drawing up of memories itself isn't Si.

Well maybe I don't understand then.

Where do shadows come in then? Or do you not subscribe to shadows?

 

[barbad0s]

Well maybe I don't understand then.

Where do shadows come in then? Or do you not subscribe to shadows?

I didn't want to go there because there are different factions of thought in regards to how shadows fit in. I have explained what is commonly accepted by all who are involved in cognitive function stuffs and sort of is the common denominator to all of these theories. This is how functions work.

Some people believe that the "shadows" exist not as shadows, but as 5th to 8th functions, and that we have nasty conflicted relationships with them... or that they're there but very weak. Some believe that we only experience our shadows when we are under stress. There are a lot of different ideas out there, a handful of which are probably outright fundamentally wrong when pitted against JCF theory and just the result of people playing telephone over the internet.

 

[sprinkles]

I didn't want to go there because there are different factions of thought in regards to how shadows fit in. I have explained what is commonly accepted by all who are involved in cognitive function stuffs and sort of is the common denominator to all of these theories. This is how functions work.

Some people believe that the "shadows" exist not as shadows, but as 5th to 8th functions, and that we have nasty conflicted relationships with them... or that they're there but very weak. Some believe that we only experience our shadows when we are under stress. There are a lot of different ideas out there, a handful of which are probably outright fundamentally wrong and just the result of people playing telephone over the internet.

Ok.

Is there empirical basis for this?

I'd at one point thought that MBTI was poppycock voodoo with no basis. Then I simply began to see it as a taxonomy of sorts, categorizing readily seen traits and their interactions.

If you're saying that it's actually some underlying mechanism that is not taxonomic, then I may have to lean back towards poppycock voodoo unless you can direct me to some evidence of these functions existing as an actual mechanism that causes behaviors rather than identifying the behavior.

 

[barbad0s]

Ok.

Is there empirical basis for this?

I'd at one point thought that MBTI was poppycock voodoo with no basis. Then I simply began to see it as a taxonomy of sorts, categorizing readily seen traits and their interactions.

If you're saying that it's actually some underlying mechanism that is not taxonomic, then I may have to lean back towards poppycock voodoo unless you can direct me to some evidence of these functions existing as an actual mechanism that causes behaviors rather than identifying the behavior.

It's taxonomical because it can only be, but not-so-empirical "research" has been collected over the years by Jung and a number of his associates that has formed the basis for these theories. Still, there is no actual empirical evidence that these functions exist. Dario Nardi, the non-dead researcher you might've heard of has been doing EEG scans that show that there are trends for brain activity among people who have similar cognitive function types; of course these don't say anything that points towards actual "existence" of the functions (that is, them existing in physical reality and coming from the brain), but it may say something for the mechanism.

 

[sprinkles]

It's taxonomical because it can only be, but not-so-empirical "research" has been collected over the years by Jung and a number of his associates that has formed the basis for these theories. Still, there is no actual empirical evidence that these functions exist. Dario Nardi, the non-dead researcher you might've heard of has been doing EEG scans that show that there are trends for brain activity among people who have similar cognitive function types; of course these don't say anything that points towards actual "existence" of the functions (that is, them existing in physical reality and coming from the brain), but it may say something for the mechanism.

Makes sense.

The reason I have a problem with this is that a function in the sense of causes must have an empirical mechanism. e.g. something being lifted into the air has a cause, but the cause can be a hot air balloon, or a lever. That would be the functional mechanism, how something is thereby caused.

The problem arises in the fact that a mere quiz, even given by a professional, cannot look into the material cause. Even an EEG does not look into the material cause - it only looks at a correlation of two things which are caused. So a different EEG result may or may not tell you that there might be something different about the mechanism, but it still cannot represent the function in the sense of material causes. It's only useful for outcome taxonomy - it tells you what, not how.

 

[barbad0s]

Makes sense.

The reason I have a problem with this is that a function in the sense of causes must have an empirical mechanism. e.g. something being lifted into the air has a cause, but the cause can be a hot air balloon, or a lever. That would be the functional mechanism, how something is thereby caused.

The problem arises in the fact that a mere quiz, even given by a professional, cannot look into the material cause. Even an EEG does not look into the material cause - it only looks at a correlation of two things which are caused. So a different EEG result may or may not tell you that there might be something different about the mechanism, but it still cannot represent the function in the sense of material causes. It's only useful for outcome taxonomy - it tells you what, not how.

Exactly...

It's a guessing game where you are supposed to eventually figure out which imaginary levers you have. People do seem to be able to match up to a set of levers, but nothing else makes enough sense including where they came from or why.

 

[sprinkles]

Exactly...

It's a guessing game where you are supposed to eventually figure out which imaginary levers you have. People do seem to be able to match up to a set of levers, but nothing else makes enough sense including where they came from or why.

Yes and from what bits I've read, Jung had never intended to concentrate on the levers. Doing so is a bit loopy, and I find it not very pragmatic. So personally I will continue to refrain from reifying functions in this manner.

 

[barbad0s]

Yes and from what bits I've read, Jung had never intended to concentrate on the levers. Doing so is a bit loopy, and I find it not very pragmatic. So personally I will continue to refrain from reifying functions in this manner.

Jung himself was a bit loopy lol. I think at this point, everyone is just taking from it what seems to work for them, of course as a result of how much of the theory they feel is accounted for, so ya, take from it what you will.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I feel bad for the people who suffer for the trouble of their own making. I don't have much choice about it. If someone is hurting, I'm hurting. I've thought of this as being the definition of Fe. If you can selectively choose who deserves you feeling for them and who doesn't, it seems like you may be more of a Fi user than a Fe user?

I also don't subscribe to the idea that winning at something makes someone a better person.

You seem to assume that competing, or winning are detrimental to others.

Foul play, cheating, sabotaging others' victories, and belittling runners-up are detrimental. Good spirited competition helps everyone achieve more and better things.


Letting others win, not offering your best effort in competition, and belittling excellence as something bad is variously patronizing, selfish, and petty.

 

[Gul Dukat]

Good spirited competition helps everyone achieve more and better things.

Unfortunately, genuine good-spirited competition is a rare and precious thing.
The higher the stakes, the greater the likelihood that someone is going to cheat or use some sort of unfair advantage.

 

[sassafras]

I think personal ambition and competition often overlap, but they're two different attitudes. Personal ambition, for example, is having higher expectations of yourself and demanding performance regardless of who is watching. It's a form of honor and personal pride derived from challenging one self to do more and being able to push your own limits.

Competition, on the other hand, is qualifying yourself against the standards of others. The other person mirrors your competence (or incompetence) and often, you're both striving for the same thing. The potential loss of face (or the loss of a lover, a desired job position, or some prize) can be enough to motivate you to move; the desire for personal excellence doesn't have to factor into the equation. We often take things for granted and think that the opportunities for success will always be there. Competition is the sharp reminder than we're not at all as safe as we like to think we are; we might lose. Many people don't like losing and they feel worse having to sit by idly and watch it happen, so competition gets them off their butts! Their personal honor is on the line.

I don't think it's possible to be truly ambitious without being competitive. Certainly, we see a lot of people having high aspirations for themselves but they don't do anything to reach them. For example, a person might like to have a fit body, but they don't put in the effort and sacrifices necessary to yield the results they need to achieve their goal. Not even competition sparks their interest. I think it's because while they fundamentally would prefer to be somewhere other than where they are now, they don't really want this goal for themselves in the first place. More often than not, they think its a goal they should have rather than what they truly desire. If you really want something, on the other hand, you will go through hell or high water to get better at it; you will put yourself through pain, humiliation and failure to get where you want to be because you're passionate about your personal growth and you believe one day, you'll get yours. And you will, so long as you're not afraid to pay the price.

I think competition and ambition are natural and healthy. It doesn't have to be this cut-throat, evil thing. It can be friendly and playful and if anything, it serves as an excellent test of will and dedication. I suspect people who shy away from competition usually do so because deep down they believe that they won't succeed or they fear that if they do, more will be demanded of them in the future (including a rise in personal standards that they may not actually be interested in maintaining). Competition takes everyone out of their comfort zones and personal ambition (the real kind) requires it. However, some people like their comfort zones, but are taught to be ashamed to want to stay in them, so they talk about goals that they only half-halfheartedly attempt to reach to at least look ambitious. If you're happy with what you got, be happy with what you got.

 

[Mary Shelley]

You seem to assume that competing, or winning are detrimental to others.
Foul play, cheating, sabotaging others' victories, and belittling runners-up are detrimental. Good spirited competition helps everyone achieve more and better things.
Letting others win, not offering your best effort in competition, and belittling excellence as something bad is variously patronizing, selfish, and petty.

Sometimes it is detrimental; other times competition is for the greater good. Sometimes it is good for the consumer or for the marketplace. I mean to comment on none these ends. What I'm saying is that for whatever reason and regardless of what ultimately comes of it, when they hurt, I hurt. I am speaking only of the immediate emotions following the victory / loss.

 

[this is only temporary]

Sometimes it is detrimental; other times competition is for the greater good. Sometimes it is good for the consumer or for the marketplace. I mean to comment on none these ends. What I'm saying is that for whatever reason and regardless of what ultimately comes of it, when they hurt, I hurt. I am speaking only of the immediate emotions following the victory / loss.

I know exactly what you mean, and this is why I rarely watch sports, I will, however, provide snacks and bloody marys. Even if you're glad your team won, and get caught up in the excitement of it all, it is a little sad to watch the other team, and downright disgusting to watch some of the bad, petty, unsportsmanlike behavior of some of the fans.

 

[sassafras]

Letting others win, not offering your best effort in competition, and belittling excellence as something bad is variously patronizing, selfish, and petty.

I agree.

"Yeah, dude, I'd participate in this here competition, but I don't want your feelings to get hurt, so..."

Just because your feelings may be easily hurt, you can't assume that someone else will feel the same way. They might actually like competition. It may inspire them. Failure never feels good, but it's a learning experience. It shows people their blindspots and pushes them to improve. Furthermore, they might have sought you out specifically because they see you as a worthy opponent and they want to test their mettle. Competition is an excellent opportunity to learn and grow for everyone. It's only a hazing experience if you look at it that way.

You also can't assume they will cheat or hurt you on purpose unless you have serious grounds to think so. How would you feel if someone turned down competing with you just because they thought you'd play unfair or that your feelings would be hurt if you lost?

I think people need to use their common sense. If the competition in question requires you to cheat, play dirty or actually hurt someone, or you know that you could expect some serious shady business from the people competing, don't participate. However, don't automatically assume that it's going to be a thing of evil. Most competitions aren't all that morally despicable and the antagonism is usually minimal, if there at all; I can assure that, nine times out of ten, competition will NOT cause you to get so carried away as to inspire a script for a Hollywood dramedy. As for people who are sore losers, it's time to grow a thicker skin. If you expect to never fail, you'll never learn or try anything in your life.

 

[this is only temporary]

I agree.

...They might actually like competition. It may inspire them. Failure never feels good, but it's a learning experience. It shows people their blindspots and pushes them to improve. Furthermore, they might have sought you out specifically because they see you as a worthy opponent and they want to test their mettle. Competition is an excellent opportunity to learn and grow for everyone. It's only a hazing experience if you look at it that way.

You also can't assume they will cheat or hurt you on purpose unless you have serious grounds to think so. How would you feel if someone turned down competing with you just because they thought you'd play unfair or that your feelings would be hurt if you lost?

That's the same exact thing my husband has been saying forever... also that the losers in sporting events are being paid millions of dollars a year and that I shouldn't feel too sorry for them.

 

[the]

I dont like it but I go along to get along. There is too much surplus in my life to be competitive over, it is stupid but since everyone is hoarding resources I got to do what I got to do. I'm not very ambitious I guess by nature.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

Throughout most of my youth I would travel long distances with the goal of finding someone to beat me at my sport. I did this because you don't become a better wrestler by whooping someone's ass every day. You become a better wrestler by getting your ass whooped, going home, studying, and coming back for more. The champions aren't scared to lose. So when someone used to beat me in my sport I admit I would sometimes cry after matches. But it made me better in the long run. And I knew to always have respect for the person who beat me as long as they won with class; they didn't shit talk, stayed humble, and "left it all on the mat".

The best wrestlers look for competition. I knew a kid who would travel 2 hours to wrestling practice every day just so he would have a workout partner who was better than him, that kid went on to be an NCAA D1 champion. It's not a coincidence.