The two thinker types, the Survivalist* (we), and the Idealists* (I) are quite likely the easiest described when we get WAY overboard with our way of thinking; turn narcissistic. The Survivalist* think of the world from the WE perspective, and everyone who they decide is a part of the we-collective has to function by the same rules despite their own opinion. (“My opinions do not matter, I am in the service of my family or my friends, and WE have decided to think this way, and if you are a member of the family or group of friends and  you do not publically declare the same opinions, attitudes and traditions, you are a faulty individual.”) The Idealists* think of the word from the I perspective, where, when taken to the extreme, nobody matters but themselves. (Completely gives up on people, and the hope of finding people they’d love and respect, and decides to focus on oneself only.) Most of us are somewhere in between, but the Survivalist* can have a hard time understanding the Idealists* and vice versa, and BOTH can accuse the other of being a narcissist – for a good reason.

Relationship problem solving when facing incompatibility

This situation describes the interaction of incompatible people who are trying their best to find their natural tribe. The Survivalist* attempt to solve the problem by forcing others into becoming like them and thinking like the group does, and to “teach them how to be a part of the group,” not really considering the perspective that everyone who they consider a part of the we-collective is a part fo it. The we-thinker feel that “Ok, OMG, X doesn’t feel like they are a part of our family / group, we must instantly fix this and make him/her feel a part of the unit!” The more they feel the I-thinker thinks differently, the more they try to lay out the rules for them, to make the expectations clearer and clearer for them, so that they could adapt to the expectations easier, not realizing that the I-thinker has no intention or desire to do so. Their own need to create union and unison of thinking is so great, that they don’t understand why anyone would NOT WANT to do it, and that the only possible reason for someone to run away from something like this is their fear that they CANNOT do it, as in, not will not but cannot – incapable, skill-wise. So lovingly, they  try to force the issue: If I force them to function a certain way, they will LEARN how to work together in a team the way we, humans, have evolved into working in a team. THAT is a HEALTHY the Survivalist* with a healthy the Idealists* in action.

An Idealist* tries to solve the same problem by disengaging themselves from incompatible people and attempting to seek union among people who already think and feel very similarly to themselves. They do not believe themselves to be justified in attempting to change someone else’s behavior or beliefs, and therefore, they seek to leave their birth family, for instance, and join another group of people who are more in tune with their own, often evolved thinking patterns. The miscommunication happens, when the confused the Survivalist* (who are always seeking ways to become more like their surrounding people) asks questions of the Idealists* on how they think about things and how they function and operate. So the Idealists*, thinking that the Survivalist* is simply confused, offers them some quick pointers on their way out the door, making the Survivalist* feel they are creating a bond, a union, ironing out the differences and creating an understanding on how “we” operate.

When a healthy the Survivalist* and a healthy the Idealists* are in the same family without having a natural compatibility, the Idealists* wants to find a way out of the family, marriage, or friendship, while the Survivalist* does everything they can to keep the family together. (Fear the Walking Dead; Allison and Travis are both the Survivalist*, both of their sons are the Idealists*, demonstrating this dynamic perfectly. As much as I hate that show, the main reason why I hate it so much is the painfully realistic description of these two thinker types colliding inside a family, and even more so knowing that the ending will promote the Survivalist* type and making the Idealists* submit to the thinking patterns of the Survivalist* simply because they love to win so much and cannot comprehend the Idealists* mentality, AT ALL, tying reluctant souls into a karmic soul bond for eternities simply by their inability to see another perspective. I am a Idealists*, clearly.)

The Idealists* regards a lot of relationships as a responsibility, obligation, or a burden that they take to with reluctant compliance, whereas the Survivalist* regard relationships as something fun to toy with; emotional conflict is like the food they eat. Cannot be shaken by fighting or arguing; it is simply feeding the monster. The Idealists*, however, can be chased away with one single insulting word. They can end an entire relationship in a blink of an eye because insulting behavior is something they do not tolerate. When that person comes after them, to argue some more, it is possible to provoke them into a fight, but they do not understand the Survivalist* thinking purpose of the said fight. To them, fighting is to END the relationship, not to create intimacy, and that is something that the Survivalist* are always prone of misinterpreting. When they argue and the Idealists* acts polite, they feel like the Idealists* thinks they’re better than them, and once the Idealists* has enough, they will start arguing; the Survivalist* thinks they are finally starting to see eye to eye, and be on the same level, all the while the Idealists* is getting ready to commit murders if required. The Idealists* only objective when arguing, is to drive the Survivalist* away, and if they do not go, they can turn aggressive, violent, or even murderous. This is something that the Survivalist* simply MUST understand for their own good. ANY the Idealists* can be driven to murder in this situation, when he starts feeling that being in jail, in comparison, doesn’t sound like a half bad alternative.

Tip for the Survivalist* about the Idealists*: They are mostly serious about what they say, no matter how outlandish. (Jokes aside.)
Tip for the Idealists* about the Survivalist*: They don’t necessarily mean what they say but say stuff in a serious or argumentative tone just to get a reaction.

Ending an argument with the Survivalist*

the Idealists* find it near impossible to find a way to end an argument or the relationship with the Survivalist*. That is why restraining orders are for but often used by the Survivalist* for another complicated reason I won’t get into now. (Power play.) The Survivalist* believe that for as long as there is feelings in the relationship, there is hope, so essentially that means that for as long as we argue, we are still on the path to recovery. In some cases, that is true, when the Idealists* still feels love in addition to being irritated, but when the Idealists* no longer feels love for the Survivalist*, they may find it even harder to get through to the Survivalist* that the relationship is over.

So. To end it, the Idealists* should put this question on the table: “What needs to happen so that this argument will end? ONE THING must end; this constant arguing or the entire relationship. What has to happen for one or the other to happen?” That might make the message clear to the Survivalist*… Unless this becomes a relationship strategy, after which, they will not take you seriously anymore but figure this is yet another way of bullying them into compliance. In many the Survivalist*/the Idealists* relationships, the only content or intrique in the relationship is the argument itself. Once the argument ends, the Survivalist* may feel bored with you and leave you themselves, because intimacy, to them, means pot shots and low blows rather than mutual trust, respect, care, and adoration… Until they finally meet their True Emotion Mirrors that the Idealists* are always looking for but often get stuck in an argument with the Survivalist*.

The reason why it is so difficult to stop fighting with the Survivalist*, is because they believe that respect comes from arguing as much as possible. “To not give someone an inch”, to them, is a sign of strenght and character, and they firmly believe anyone who engages into a fight with them does so out of respect. They also expect very little out of a relationship; you share your food and shelter with me, you love and accept me. The rest is irrelevant.

Making friends the Survivalist* way vs. The Idealists* way

A Survivalist* who doesn’t want to make a new friend offers no personal information to that person. An Idealist* doesn’t even consider themselves having a chat yet, once the Survivalist* is well on their way of making a permanent, life-long bond. An Idealist* may talk about their lives freely and without a second thought, and that makes the Survivalist* think that they are completely on board with making friends or really desperate for friends because the Idealists* open up answers any question asked of them.

An Idealist* has a concept of an acquittance. A Survivalist* really doesn’t. They have friends and people they don’t talk to or people they are still developing a friendship with. An Idealist* may, then, be very friendly with the Survivalist* on the acquittance level, even help them through life’s greatest ordeals without it meaning much to them, at all. “Just what decent people do.” They would put more effort in helping a stranger than the Survivalist* would do for someone they’ve known their entire lives but never liked enough to exchange personal information. (If the phone brand do not match you don’t matter to me.) On the other hand, if the Survivalist* does help someone in need, they expect this to be a pre-payment of a very solid life-long friendship, where as a Idealists* would shudder away from helping anyone who believes it leads to an actual relationship! A Survivalist* would hesitate to help a dying stranger who seems “different” because of their fear of being linked to them forever, a Idealists* would help anyone who needs help with ANYTHING at all, thus giving the Survivalist* the signal that they matter to them as an individual rather than a member of the human species.

A Survivalist* who I had a conflict once, asked me that if I didn’t consider her one of my best friends, why do I keep answering her questions. I didn’t even comprehend her question. “It’s a conversation, it would be rude not to answer, and I have no secrets,” I answered, bewildered. “But I can use that against you later.” “How?” wanted to know… Her answer made no sense to me, but what she meant was that now she can become like me and stab me in the back when I am not looking. It seems that the Survivalist* thinking friendship involves a lot of back stabbing, and if you make friends with them, you give them the permission to do so; It’ll be fun to bleed together. They also are bewildered at the Idealists* who do not understand the concept of a personal flaw: “I know that you like Android phones rather than iPhones, don’t you know that makes you weird?” When the Idealists* doesn’t understand why weird is a bad thing, or why they should use an iPhone when the Android is superior simply to fit in, the Survivalist* thinks they are being narcissistic – not understanding that they are being weird, failing to meet the norms and still consider themselves better than others! The way a Idealists* demonstrate being better than others is by refusing to buy and iPhone as soon as they are able and apologizing for their Android every time they are in public together, as expected. What indignation! Friendship, to the Survivalist* is mutual abuse – to dig the dagger deeper in a mutual game of who is better at being “us” than who.

(This is why endorsement deals work so well: A fan will start using the same product as the idol to demonstrate an “us” vibe. We are friends. I am like you. I love you.”)

The Idealists* make friendship difficult for the Survivalist*

Essentially, the Survivalist* and the Idealists* friendship making process works the same way. It is simply that the information that matters to the Survivalist* is different to a Idealists*, and the stuff that the Idealists* will be ready to change for is very different to what the Survivalist* changes for. The Survivalist* is focussed on material things, the Idealists* is focussed on the philosophical similarities. The Idealists* do change their perspective on their philosophical in the pressure of someone who they respect and want to impress, and who puts in a valid argument for their cause, much like the Survivalist* can be persuaded to change to Android given enough reasons to do so by someone they want to impress.

The Idealists*, however, never offer the rules of engagement to other people, no matter how much they like them, and, PARTICULARLY if they like them. If they like someone, the last thing they want to make them feel is that they would want them to change in some way, because they want them to feel that they are perfect and loved the way they are, EXACTLY the way they are. This doesn’t mean that a Idealists* is not able to see the fun of it if they are explained what the Survivalist* already do; the whole change for me game is a signal: “I would do anything for you.” The Idealists*, generally speaking, wouldn’t do much for anybody, however, and they easily lose their respect for a person who would change one thing about themselves for them; they value individuality more than anything else, and if someone would directly ask them what they need to do in order to be their friend, they would be baffled: “ANYTHING BUT ASK ME HOW!!! You have to know how! If you have to ask, you are not real, you are asking me how to fake it!”

The Idealists* get really angry when someone tries to change for them because they feel that the other considers them a tyrant. “You do this because you think I WANT YOU TO CHANGE FOR ME? To be something specific for me?!” To a Idealists*, nothing is worse than a tyrant who dictates their will on other people, and nothing as pitiful as a person who would offer themselves to manipulation.

However, it would do the Idealists* some good to loosen up about this rule to an extent, it can be fun to tickle the dagger on someone who you truly love and lust after, but needless to say a Idealists* should not do this for someone they are not crazy about and would not knowingly do this for anyone they do not truly love.

The Idealists* should become aware of the Survivalist* negotiable-tactic, they have certain things they do not negotiate over, but they offer a lot of stuff on the table that is negotiable. For instance… My oldest, most developed soulmate, the oldest of my True Emotion Mirror connections is, ironically, the Survivalist*, or he has simply learned this tactic from women – him being a very handsome man and all (the Survivalist* thinking is more typical to women, and polyandrous women tend to be a bit slow to catch up on this having been surrounded by men all their incarnations) and, when we met, he used to wear leather pants with shirts a lot like Jim Morrison meets Johnny Depp. When I became single, he started wearing Armani suits a lot. I preferred him in leather pants, not that I minded Armani, but… He often opened his jacket to show me the label. What he was trying to ask me: “Does this meet her majesty’s approval?” I thought this was simply cute, his pride ver the damned Armani, but what I should have said on a Friday night: “What if I tell you I prefer the leather pants, would you be back in them tomorrow?” If he would have shown up glad in leather, that would have been a clear sign of “the game is on”. I didn’t get that. All I wanted was to have a real conversation.

The Idealists* flirt, too, but differently. To them, the most important thing is the simple eye-contact. They will decide at the first glance whether they want sex or a full life with someone, and they do not need further questions. The Idealists* flirt by sexual innuendo and remarks, sexual touch and “lewd” suggestions, stuff that the Survivalist* hate and the lack of which the Idealists* feel the other party is not even interested. When a Idealists* falls in love, they are ready to move in the next day, but to the Survivalist*, this seems a bit too straight forward and easy, boring, even. The Survivalist* are also afraid of physical hurt, whereas the Idealists* enjoy physical pain (BDSM). This leads to the situation where the Survivalist* insist on physical immunity, while the Idealists* require emotional respect; When the Survivalist* approaches physical sexual relationships slowly, a Idealists* needs to be approached with similar care and delicacy emotionally. Similarly, the Survivalist* can be torn to shreds on the first meeting emotionally, whereas a Idealists* enjoys the idea of heated, rough sex on the first meeting.

The Idealists* only have non-negotiables on the table. The Survivalist* offer both. When the Idealists* never give up on anything for the Survivalist*, the Survivalist* doesn’t know they are wanted, and, on the other hand, when the Idealists* gets together with the Survivalist*, and the Survivalist* starts flirting with a change, no matter how minor, the Idealists* feels attacked: “Does it really fucking matter which color shirt I wear?!” And the answer, translated in the Idealists* language would be “No, but that’s the point. Would you wear another color just to flirt with me? To show me you want me?” When the Idealists* angrily refuses to change a color of his shirt just to please her impossible demands, she feels rejected and believes she’s not wanted.

A family vs. an individual

When the Idealists* leaves, they do not want to harm their family or particularly rebel against it, they simply want to live their life to the way they want it, hopeful to find a connection to someone they naturally feel a kinship towards and find their place in the world. To the Survivalist*, this need is incomprehensible, because what matters more than family? How could someone possibly feel a deeper connection to a stranger compared to their own family? When the Idealists* refuses to remain a part of the family, the Survivalist* believe they are “narcissistic, selfish, self-serving, disobedient, unable to function in a normal society, rebellious, attention-seeking, self-important…” the list goes on. All of this because the Idealists* feels they do not have an intellectual and emotional connection to their own birth family and wants to make their own, independent way through life. “You do not think like us, therefore you have issues.”

A great example of the Survivalist* gone absolutely overboard would be Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., the father of J.F. Kennedy and Rosemary Kennedy. Rosemary is the Kennedy that seems to go missing of the official family trees because her father organized to have her lobotomized because she didn’t live her life to the expectation of his father, who had his heart set on having a president for a son. Rosemary, a Idealists*, refused to play along and was given a lobotomy at the age of 23 to keep her from interfering in her brother’s future. In his mind, he was probably doing the right thing – a humane treatment for an obviously disturbed child who simply didn’t understand what was best for the family. In reality, there was nothing wrong with her, she simply didn’t think about life the same way as the family she was born into. A beautiful, intelligent woman lost to the Survivalist* need to keep a family unified. It is clear to say that when things go this far, we have gone WAY past what is acceptable, even though from a Idealists* perspective, that line is crossed far earlier than this – but at this stage, I think most the Survivalist* would accept there was a little bit too much emphasis on the way things looked to the public vs. how they were.

The thing is, a Idealists* doesn’t need to be recognized by their family. When Molière decided to go against his family’s wishes and become an actor/playwriter, he simply changed his name so he wouldn’t cause his family any shame. Now, we do not even care what his original name was, his family has long been forgotten and we only remember the name Molière. (We can still dig it up in the history books if someone gives a hoot.) The Idealists* care about what the man did, not what his family name is, his plays will live on and he is the one we remember, think about, admire… His family bears no importance in our minds. For the Survivalist*… They are suspicious of everyone who doesn’t have a family line, because, it seems, they are afraid he might have grown in an apple tree for all they know.

The Survivalist* are fine with all kinds of personal flaws, as long as they do not come in the way of the family (or another group they put a high stake on). They accept hidden flaws, but nothing that will show on the outside. The Idealists* wants to reject everyone they do not approve of, but their morals and ideals may make them alter this approach, which is most likely the cause for these karmic bonds to begin with. They have tried to do the right thing by the Survivalist* who they naturally despise by taking them into their families, teaching them how to evolve… and thus, causing a karmic bond to evolve that is now biting them in the ass in the form of natural karma. Imagine children of primitive cultures being taken away from their families, scared and bewildered, then, being integrated into white families as they believed they were doing them a favor… So now the favor is being returned… Idealists have always attempted to control natural human behavior to make ourselves more moral, and the Idealists* are nothing but idealists.

There is the Idealists* thinking narcissism for you. The Idealists* value intelligence, evolution, philosophy, schooling, knowledge, arts… And they wanted to educate those who are less fortunate than themselves. As a result, they disrupted the natural flow of other cultures. What must be done is to learn to follow one’s instinct again, our instinct that is always trying to restore the balance of the Universe, but an instinct is very easily confused with a learned habit.

The goal is to become a bit of both types

To find a healthy balance in relationships is not so much required for being regarded healthy or normal, but to be a master of relationships. It is equally important for the Idealists* to learn how not to make accidental friends with people, as it is for the Survivalist* to learn to be more self-reliant and self-critical when it comes to their friendships and alliances. The Survivalist* should learn to answer the question of “my non-negotiables” rather than focus on building as large a shed as possible to keep their bargains in, and the Idealists* should learn to loosen up a bit and flirt with the negotiables, because, without the negotiables, the Survivalist* will attack their non-negotiables instead. To do this… The Idealists* simply need to offer some negotiables on the table PARTICULARLY when flirting with a possible sexually charged friend, even if they left their non-sexual friendships the way they normally like them.

Subscribe to get a Daily Message