back from the dead

sheri | 9w8 infj

[onyakas]

Aux-fe is extremely annoying in relation to Ni-Ti because it basically means that unless you get some kind of social validation, you're going to be trapped in your head, examining a problem from every single angle imaginable (aka infinity) for the rest of eternity without a single satisfying answer ever found.

[onyakas]

Being known as the one seriously into typology amongst new people is so embarrassing because they'll ask you what type you are and you're faced with lying to them and saying you're a super cool type like an istp (bc literally no one will study it enough to know you're lying) or being honest and admitting with full shame and embarrassment that you're an infj, but nobody there will be able to comprehend how honest to god embarrassing it is to be a legit infj amongst all other types, only you know the humiliation.

[onyakas]

Introverted Intuition and the ULTIMATE Truth

There’s a common misconception said a lot about introverted intuition that it only sees ONE truth. The ULTIMATE truth. And while that may be true to some extent, it’s also not.

The best way I can describe what it’s like to have Ni is that moment in art class when everyone is sitting in a circle around a basket of fruit and are asked to draw the still life scene. Imagine being the teacher, and at the end of class, everyone hands you in their drawing. Now here’s the question.

Which of those drawings would you consider the ultimate representation of that basket of fruit?

And the answer that you would come up with is that no singular drawing which would be considered the ultimate. They are all equally true. There is only one situation you can put yourself in in which you would be able to choose a specific drawing as the ultimate truth. It’s when you intentionally choose a point in that circle you’re viewing the basket from.

Truth changes ever so slightly depending upon the angle that you’re viewing it from.

Like that collection of drawings, Ni sees all truth. And, to add another analogy, kind of like Schroedinger’s box, for Ni in isolation, truth exists in a state where all “drawings” are simultaneously the ultimate truth and not a truth at all. There is no ranking. They all just are. It’s when they “open that box,” aka make a decision from where to view truth, that reality collapses into a single possibility and the ULTIMATE truth emerges.

This is why Ni is so keen on wording and using analogies because, to Ne/Si, yeah, they do see the basket of fruit but they also see the entire room as well. To them, a basket of fruit is a basket of fruit. But to Ni that sees every perspective and viewpoint of that basket of fruit, they’re hypersensitive to the fact that viewpoint changes meaning in subtle, yet game changing ways.

Ne often has a hard time interacting with Ni because they feel Ni hyperfixates on the ULTIMATE truth. And they are objectively right. We are irritating. If you want to be able to make them see other possibilities, you have to be the one to tell them to “change your viewpoint.” If you just say, “Well if you view it in this way,” they probably will acknowledge that you have a point.

I'm too lazy to write a conclusion to this post so I'm ending it here.

[onyakas]

My biggest warning to typology learners that they will not understand is just because you see it in an article doesn't necessarily mean that it is right. Please use your brain. I know that you may be Te, but do your best.

[onyakas]

The lower level of typology understanding is that the only requirements to be a specific type is if you fill the requirements needed for that type (cognitive functions, core fears, core emotion, instinctual variants), not because you have a specific type of personality or act a specific way.

The higher level of typology understanding is that common aspects will commonly behave and actuate in specific ways across an abundance of different people. Thus, it becomes very easy to type someone based on a set of specific traits.

[lauracoretypologies]

The societal SX-shaming - destigmatizing the vocalization of one's rawest desires

(The influence of social mirage on the collective superego of SX-blind folks)

One thing that has been bothering me for probably a longer time than I've realized is the stigmatization of the most primal, raw instinctual desires and needs by our society, in the name of "calling out toxic standards imposed by people like you (read, people in touch with their desires)."

In reality, this is mere pretense, made to camouflage how SX-blind folks are unable to get in touch with their sense of attraction and disgust enough to select their choices for themselves. When they see a person, mainly SX first or second, making selections solely on what attracts and repulses them, they often resort to discriminating against them by saying their personal standards and preferences are toxic, irrelevant or unhealthy.

And of course, it's easier for them to do that, in the name of social or political acceptance (see the SO and SP nature mixed in that, by the way?) than to admit to themselves, that they themselves have a sense of attractive and repulsive, but buried so deep down out of being socially correct and guilty, that they can't help but to moralize their sensual incompetence and label themselves as the proper SJWs.

In many SX-blinds, this tendency is so pathological that while they're okay seeing people making romantic selections based on "compatibility" and "values", the very same selection becomes toxic out of nowhere, once motivated by a sense of attraction and repulsion.

Not to mention the irrelevance and fallacies in their arguments. They confuse personal selection even for the most intimate relations for imposing toxic standards upon society, even if by not acting in a hypocritical manner, you're doing the exact opposite by being fair, justful, and *practicing your personal freedom's* to do so. After all, what they see is that you rejecting a certain trait somehow equals telling people to abide by your standards, even though you're simply choosing people who fit it and letting those who don't live as they are.

It's like a brunette crying that a man wants to date blonde and resorts to accusing him of imposing the standard of bleaching hair onto her. It's like nerds refusing to date brainless people so they accuse them of elitism. It's like experienced men whining that a physically pure woman is repulsed by a non-virgin man, intimately marked by someone else prior to her and accusing her of imposing purity standards onto him, as if purity can be regained by any effort. *Diabolical laughter*

But to them, this bigotry of demonizing decisions made based on repulsion/attraction principle is a way to cope with the fact that certain preferences unselect them. They're the ones suffering consequences of making decisions against their disgust and then paying with a breakup for it. Secretly, and often subconsciously, they envy SX types that they're able to make successful decisions based on desires and turn-offs, and it mirrors their inability to do so when they experience such envy.

They project their values and *options* onto others and the moment someone has standards that go beyond what they are, they feel inevitably discriminated against. Nevermind that you value them on a social level and simply disregard them romantically, as for them they don't see when it's romantic and when it's not. How dare you, (insert a name for either sexist, ageist, or whatever label they find for your ways).

And it's exactly this SX-blind confusion and type of thinking which develops these toxic standards. Because only a person who is capable of acting upon an entirely random person's desires and translate it into receiving basic human respect in the name of being socially respected and is exploiting their desire IS setting a societal norm out of nothing but the consumerist SP idea that you can get resources in return of living to someone's sexual ideals, or that somehow you can't financially survive without being everyone's type.

Of course, this goes both ways. There are also SX-blinds, who confuse their own desires for who is worthy of their basic respect and who is not, so they assume SX firsts are the same type of evil who do it openly. Whoops...

It's a very messed-up thinking, when in reality, no person will judge your societal worth based on *one's own personal* desire, disgust, demand or preference. You can be sexually unthinkable to someone and they can still respect you as a human. I wonder if these people either sexualize their moms, or think they're invaluable because they can't get intimately involved with them. *Smirk*

At the end of the day, they're nothing but fallen victims of their own system they complain so much about. SX types are the ones who recognize the subjectivity of attraction and repulsion and don't sell their icks as an objective moral failure, but it's the SX-blinds that IMPOSE what's acceptable to desire or what isn't. In other words, they *are* the toxic standard.

[onyakas]

On some level, I do get where you're coming from, and I don't think you're wrong, but I don't think you're necessarily also addressing what sx attraction actually is. It makes sense that sx-blinds would hold a disgust towards sx attraction because sx attraction is essentially selfish and self-serving.

Granted, I just made this blog and I don't know what the modern perception is of sx, but at least ten years ago, sx was defined as a deep emotional connection on a higher level. It was an excitement and spark that original soc connections could not satisfy. It was deep, raw, and emotional. But what nobody ever addressed is that sx people only sx for what they get out of it. What I mean is a higher level of connection doesn't necessarily mean attachment and devotion. What's commonly the case is that sx-users use people to satisfy their need of a higher more exciting connection and then leave and abandon them when the sx-user is satisfied.

And you may not believe me, but the ultimate type for a connection and a bond (though not necessarily deep) is actually soc. Community inherently matters to socs, so it's socs that regularly contact their friends and plan outings and conduct check ins. This is not the case with sx and you can especially see it in sx/sos. The common stereotype for them (which is rooted in reality) is that they're flirtatious people who cannot make a single commitment.

Sx, as an instinctual variant in isolation, is essentially a vampire trying to fill its hunger. It can't exist on its own (sp). Low level interactions aren't enough (soc). So it actively looks outside for people, hobbies, and situations that can feed their need for higher level interaction. And once it is fed, it doesn't need its food source anymore. At least for the time being. Maybe they'll seek them out when they become hungry again.

Sx-blinds cannot understand sx, but as people that value connection and community and bonds, I completely understand why sx would repel them. What sane person would want to be used? What sympathetic person would want to be friends with a person that uses and abuses other people? Like I do get where you're coming from. But sx-users are not infallible either. They have every right to be criticized and seen with disgust.