Doesn't anyone here aspire to know the unknown, or to be original?

[Hitta]

It seems like there is a complete lack of creativity here(except for a couple of people). Mundane normalcy is a constant here. Is it that hard to open up your minds to the possibilities of things? Is it that hard to question established ideas or systems? As far as my theories have been here, I've been doomed from the get-go. I had absolutely no chance here. It wouldn't matter if I were right(which I still am pretty sure I am) or not. Idea killers. Change eliminators. Chains on freedom. Why are you so afraid? There are infinite ideas, infinite possibilities. Is this what scares you? The base upon which creativity stands on? We have our lives to figure out the meaning of everything; to understand what life means(whether it be understanding ones own subjective conscious or actually discovering the objective world). Years from now I ask that you remember me when the old paint on your walls starts to peel away and you're finally able to see what is underneath it all. The borders, the constructs, the system in which you were living under. Hopefully at this time you will remember me, so we can rid the world of the consensuses, so that we will finally be able to develop our own original ideas and allow freedom to be free.

[Expat]

As far as my theories have been here, I've been doomed from the get-go. I had absolutely no chance here. It wouldn't matter if I were right(which I still am pretty sure I am) or not. Idea killers. Change eliminators. Chains on freedom.

Nobody has prevented you from presenting your ideas, nor prevented others from discussing them positively -- tcaudilllg, Jonathan, labcoat I believe. So where are the "chains on freedom?" But if you should have the freedom to present your ideas, others should have the freedom to say that they think they are stupid.

[Ezra]

hitta, why are you such a depressive, moody bastard who relies on everyone's praise to get across his ideas?

[Smilingeyes]

What are you offering but another set of chains?

Why should it be you that leads the revolution of ideas? What benefit is there for anyone to support you? Why would anyone choose hitta-socionics before expatian socionics or that of phaedrus? It's possible that your ideas weren't simply good enought to elicit a large enough response to challenge the status quo. Or perhaps you lost the social game? Either way, there's no points for whining.

[Ezra]

Yeah, hitta. Smilingeyes is the revolutionary, not you. You're like the Benazir Bhutto to his Lenin.

[Expat]

hitta, why are you such a depressive, moody bastard who relies on everyone's praise to get across his ideas?

That's how it looks like to me as well.

hitta, regardless of the value of your ideas -- why is it that you think that whining about why "nobody" gives you feedback will help? Why is it that that makes you "doomed from the get-go"?

[Logos]

It seems like there is a complete lack of creativity here(except for a couple of people). Mundane normalcy is a constant here. Is it that hard to open up your minds to the possibilities of things? Is it that hard to question established ideas or systems? As far as my theories have been here, I've been doomed from the get-go. I had absolutely no chance here. It wouldn't matter if I were right(which I still am pretty sure I am) or not. Idea killers. Change eliminators. Chains on freedom. Why are you so afraid? There are infinite ideas, infinite possibilities. Is this what scares you? The base upon which creativity stands on? We have our lives to figure out the meaning of everything; to understand what life means(whether it be understanding ones own subjective conscious or actually discovering the objective world). Years from now I ask that you remember me when the old paint on your walls starts to peel away and you're finally able to see what is underneath it all. The borders, the constructs, the system in which you were living under. Hopefully at this time you will remember me, so we can rid the world of the consensuses, so that we will finally be able to develop our own original ideas and allow freedom to be free.

Jesus called and he wants his mount back. Well he did say you could keep it, but only if you carry out playing the martyr until the very end.

[Smilingeyes]

Yeah, hitta. Smilingeyes is the revolutionary, not you. You're like the Benazir Bhutto to his Lenin.

Gah! NO! I'm not a revolutionary. Most of my ideas seem to be close to those of Gulenko. It would be far better to think of me as someone from the school of Gulenko with a few deviating view points and a few things that I gripe about than as a revolutionary. (Though since I've arrived to many of those ideas semi-independently I tend to explain them in a slightly different way. The substance tends to be close enough though.)

And I'm certainly not in the race for being the dominant socionics guru on the board. I've retired. Ask me about socionics and I'll throw sticks at you. If people want to fight for the domination of the ideological space I will not take part.

[Hitta]

What are you offering but another set of chains?

Why should it be you that leads the revolution of ideas? What benefit is there for anyone to support you? Why would anyone choose hitta-socionics before expatian socionics or that of phaedrus? It's possible that your ideas weren't simply good enought to elicit a large enough response to challenge the status quo. Or perhaps you lost the social game? Either way, there's no points for whining.

My ideas were neglected because they promoted change. Right or wrong, the people here do not like change. Its the same reason that Tcaud is having the same problems as I have. New ideas are frowned upon her. I'm not saying to accept my ideas, I'm saying to actually develop and opinion and not follow the norms all the time. My ideas never had a chance, because people thought that they were radically different. It didn't really matter what I said, it would be disagreed with regardless unless it was what was accepted.

[Smilingeyes]

My ideas were neglected because they promoted change. Right or wrong, the people here do not like change. Its the same reason that Tcaud is having the same problems as I have. New ideas are frowned upon her. I'm not saying to accept my ideas, I'm saying to actually develop and opinion and not follow the norms all the time. My ideas never had a chance, because people thought that they were radically different. It didn't really matter what I said, it would be disagreed with regardless unless it was what was accepted.

As far as I know you didn't simply criticize the old and encourage change in general. You suggested a new version of truth. Do you think you have been open to the suggestions of others and have you participated in the development of the ideas of others? Do you think you could collaborate with tcaud who has the same basic problem as you seem to have and create something together? I haven't followed conversations centered around your thoughts so I don't know what's the real problem. I'm just asking questions that I think might reveal something important.

[Slacker]

My ideas were neglected because they promoted change. Right or wrong, the people here do not like change. Its the same reason that Tcaud is having the same problems as I have. New ideas are frowned upon her. I'm not saying to accept my ideas, I'm saying to actually develop and opinion and not follow the norms all the time. My ideas never had a chance, because people thought that they were radically different. It didn't really matter what I said, it would be disagreed with regardless unless it was what was accepted.

No, sorry, you're wrong. It is stupid to want change simply for the sake of change. The change has to make sense and be better. What I've read of this +/- thing doesn't make sense. -Ne is described as just this side of an Ne PoLR. So I reject your ideas because they don't ring true to me. Socionics as it is so far has rung true to me. I don't stay with it because I don't like change - I stay with it because I've seen truth in it.

[marooned]

My philosophy is learn the stuff first. Learn it well. And *then* you have something to work with and can expand on it, branch off from it, work out new ideas about it, etc.

[tereg]

This is my take on it.

There is nothing wrong with presenting new ideas and theories. Repeat: nothing is wrong with presenting new ideas and theories. But you can't expect new ideas and theories to go without scrutiny and skepticism. Granted, you might have some people that dismiss it without looking at it or who barely look at it... I understand that that happens. But I sincerely doubt that that view is held by most of the people who have seriously looked at it. For you to write off a bit of skepticism and criticism as being close-minded actually appears as though you're not just simply presenting new ideas, but rather trying to jam it into our minds. That's how it comes across.

I would venture to say that not everyone is as close-minded as you think. I would imagine that throughout the threads you have presented, there have been some people who have legitimately asked tough questions and tried to give you a chance to strengthen your theory. And just by your response here, it looks like to me that either you or your theory isn't addressing those questions or it might be that you are frustrated that you might feel like you're answering those concerns but really aren't. For you to come here and say to us that we need to open our minds and look at the awesome work you've put into your theory and give you props for you work... no. We will come to your theory when we are ready to.

Personally, I want to get a good foundational understanding of classical Socionics before I even venture off into other theories, because I won't be able to base the newer theories off of anything I should be basing it off of.

Just because it takes us longer to move to or accept newer theories does not necessarily mean that we are resisting change. At least to me it doesn't appear to be. If the theory is legitimate, it should be able to stand on its own without you blatently proselytizing it. We will come around to it if it can hold its weight.

That's just my take on it. So, pardon me if writing off your accusations is detrimental to spreading your message.

[strrrng]

It wouldn't matter if I were right(which I still am pretty sure I am) or not

I thought everything was relative, according to you, so why are you bitching at people who don't subscribe to your viewpoint?

why are you constantly creating threads about how you're some misunderstood genius who everyone hates because he promotes "change?" you really haven't done shit. you took gulenko's plus/minus, and applied it to every type. big accomplishment. I am very open to new ideas, and have focused on +/- in the past, but you don't seem to be promoting anything special...

[Joy]

There are no Socionics "gurus" here.

[Ezra]

Gah! NO! I'm not a revolutionary. Most of my ideas seem to be close to those of Gulenko. It would be far better to think of me as someone from the school of Gulenko with a few deviating view points and a few things that I gripe about than as a revolutionary. (Though since I've arrived to many of those ideas semi-independently I tend to explain them in a slightly different way. The substance tends to be close enough though.)

And I'm certainly not in the race for being the dominant socionics guru on the board. I've retired. Ask me about socionics and I'll throw sticks at you. If people want to fight for the domination of the ideological space I will not take part.

I was joking.

[tcaudilllg]

@hitta:
I think it plausible that you have found yourself caught up in the age-old ideological quandry between the right and the left. You see your perpetual critics as the Joys, the Slackermoms, the Gillies, ...perhaps even the Ricks. These are the socionics Right who believe the best way to become informed about socionics is to study the Russian sources, trying to stay close to what the institutionalized viewpoint of socionics advocates as correct understanding of the theory. Even in Russia, there is a clear divide between the Institute, which advocates a conservative viewpoint of the functions, and Gulenko's Humanitarian school, which advocates a constantly changing, evolving perspective. This divide is reflected over here: the Western Left is basically picking apart Gulenko ideas (and Jung's, from whom Gulenko drew inspration) and asking,"what do these ideas mean to society?" On those points where we find Gulenko's work insufficient to explain variations noted by Jung himself, long ago, . Primarily, the Left is working to affirm and explore Jung.

Hitta, I would argue that you -- and perhaps myself as well -- need to pool our energies as opposed to trying to convince our detractors. Actually I was hoping to get Augusta's work on Reinin translated partially as a means of demonstrating to the conservative viewpoint exactly how far Augusta goes, from which point they could observe for themselves how; but if the East is divided over Augusta, can I be sure the West will not divide, too? It is ultimately a question of conduct and conservative skepticism for interdisciplinarianism (and especially, it's unclear boundaries and questionable organization), which was the basis for the Russian Right's original criticism of Augusta on Reinin. Mathematical modeling of the psyche? Outrageous. (that, and Augusta had a habit of making theories so broad that she herself did not have the energy to express them in writing. The conservative viewpoint hates this.)

In sum, utility to authority vs. non-utility.

[tcaudilllg]

Hitta let's make our own socionics forum, with blackjack and hookers!

We could request of Rmcnew to create subforums for the Left and Right, respectively. If you think about it, it'd be a good deal. Go to the Right, get hard fact, solid data, etc. Go to the left, get speculation, new models, growth.

[MysticSonic]

Why would anyone accept a theory and opinions that are the exact opposite of what they've already considered significantly and found to be true? A lot of your views conflict with my own, views I've considered very thoroughly over the past three years. I've read what you said, and I simply don't find the things you say to be true. Don't bitch about it dude. I know it's hard for you to understand how I could possibly think otherwise than what you think without being in this sort of denial and intellectual backwardness, but I actually DO have a mind of my own, we ALL have minds of our own, and we WILL come to different conclusions. There's no conservative conspiracy going on here, Hitta.

[tcaudilllg]

Yeah! That's exactly what I said, only I brought up a tired old Futurama quote to emphasize my point :C Can I be a part of this magical movement? I bring teh brownies!

Magical movement...? Why do you think it magical?

[tcaudilllg]

Why would anyone accept a theory and opinions that are the exact opposite of what they've already considered significantly and found to be true? A lot of your views conflict with my own, views I've considered very thoroughly over the past three years. I've read what you said, and I simply don't find the things you say to be true. Don't bitch about it dude. I know it's hard for you to understand how I could possibly think otherwise than what you think without being in this sort of denial and intellectual backwardness, but I actually DO have a mind of my own, we ALL have minds of our own, and we WILL come to different conclusions. There's no conservative conspiracy going on here, Hitta.

Are you sure?

[MysticSonic]

Look, I understand people have a hard time accepting ideas that are radically different from the ones they have now, but you can't demonize them for it. TCaud, your ideas are far-out and hard to understand. That's why no one believes them. Hitta, I just don't agree with 90% of the things you say. No one's trying to box in your ideas and stop them from becoming accepted, they're simply criticizing them as they see fit. Work on making your ideas more communicable and then maybe people will see them in a new light, but as they stand now(and this is mostly directed to TCaud), they are convoluted, grossly dense, and very unapproachable. This puts me, and most people, off.

[Gilly]

It seems like there is a complete lack of creativity here(except for a couple of people). Mundane normalcy is a constant here. Is it that hard to open up your minds to the possibilities of things? Is it that hard to question established ideas or systems? As far as my theories have been here, I've been doomed from the get-go. I had absolutely no chance here. It wouldn't matter if I were right(which I still am pretty sure I am) or not. Idea killers. Change eliminators. Chains on freedom. Why are you so afraid? There are infinite ideas, infinite possibilities. Is this what scares you? The base upon which creativity stands on? We have our lives to figure out the meaning of everything; to understand what life means(whether it be understanding ones own subjective conscious or actually discovering the objective world). Years from now I ask that you remember me when the old paint on your walls starts to peel away and you're finally able to see what is underneath it all. The borders, the constructs, the system in which you were living under. Hopefully at this time you will remember me, so we can rid the world of the consensuses, so that we will finally be able to develop our own original ideas and allow freedom to be free.

For the last time, it has nothing to do with you being "original." We just happen to embrace mainstream Socionics and think that most of Gulenko's offshoots from classical theory are hokery.