Vero 40

[Creepy-male]

Discussions on technical matters - or of other sorts - are very difficult, because they will not listen to explanations, but rather keep interrupting on a "prove to me I'm not wrong by questioning that you're right" basis, always, again, on the assumption that I may be lying. Also, they base their arguments on + -- that is, understandings "frozen" along ago based on personal observations and experiences.

[Expat on SEI-ILE conflict, from workshop]

I recall a quote from Vero basically saying exactly this about discussions with me. I'll go hunt it down.

Also, LIE types from THA:

• dorky and upbeat, usually outgoing but has occasional shy moments, conservative
• reserved and serious, monotonous voice, enjoys discussion of wide-ranging topics
• outspoken (sometimes argumentative), dominates social settings, lacks subtlety, vulgar sense of humor

Yes, I've seen all three.

My interactions with Vero are simply not comfortable.

*goes post huntan*

EDIT

Gul: What do you think?
Vero: I think you're this type.
Gul: Why?
Vero: Because of these things.
Gul: But why are those things true, what about this? What about this?
Vero: Because the system works like this *starts breaking down the logic*
Gul: But what about these 10 other explanations, why can't it work this way?
Vero: If you'll let me finish what I'm telling you you'll see how it all works together.
Gul: Why do you always avoid my questions?
Vero: I'm not avoiding your question, if you'll let me finish explaining, you'll have your answer.
Gul: But why don't you just answer my question now?
Vero: Because the answer to your question requires some outlining which is explained in what I'm in the middle of trying to explain to you.
Gul: *makes inflammatory comment about how I don't actually know what I'm talking about and I'm still avoiding questions*
Vero: Fuck it then, believe whatever you want. I don't care anymore.

[munenori2]

Expat

Where's that from? Also, I think the point between what Vero finds irritating about talking to you versus what Expat seems to be describing here are different. In Expat's case, it sounds like he's talking about how the person he's having trouble with (are they supposed to SEI or Te-PoLR? Don't know the context) keeps butting heads with him on the specific details and implications of the facts involved in some process, disputing their basis according to 'frozen' structures which make sense as a rational explanation for their experiences (where the focus may be on understanding rather than generating a sequential understanding useful more for practical analysis and application).

Vero seems to be more put off by trying to explain the frozen structure of the concepts themselves, as a system, and you insisting on the possibilities of this or that without as much regard for any rigorous consideration of the structure by which she has reasoned your type to be XYZ. She is trying to impart some sort of understanding that you keep challenging, I don't know if it's more with disputing the details of an observation, the logic of what follows from what, etc, but they do seem like two different kinds of cases.

Also, LIE types from THA:

Yes, I've seen all three.

Gul, these really aren't good criteria. Maybe they lean towards NT as a whole, but they don't even seem inconsistent with ILE as a typing. Not to mention the respects in which some of those traits aren't even very good reflections of how Vero behaves in person.

My interactions with Vero are simply not comfortable.

This may or may not mean anything depending on the kind of intertype relations you're thinking you two should have according to theory. Even in the case of duals there are tons of things that could put each other off that aren't even type related.

[xyz]

Damn dude, you just got this Vero fixation now dontcha?

I guess I don't blame ya though.

[Creepy-male]

Where's that from? Also, I think the point between what Vero finds irritating about talking to you versus what Expat seems to be describing here are different. In Expat's case, it sounds like he's talking about how the person he's having trouble with (are they supposed to SEI or Te-PoLR? Don't know the context) keeps butting heads with him on the specific details and implications of the facts involved in some process, disputing their basis according to 'frozen' structures which make sense as a rational explanation for their experiences (where the focus may be on understanding rather than generating a sequential understanding useful more for practical analysis and application).

Ah. Gotcha!

Vero seems to be more put off by trying to explain the frozen structure of the concepts themselves, as a system, and you insisting on the possibilities of this or that without as much regard for any rigorous consideration of the structure by which she has reasoned your type to be XYZ. She is trying to impart some sort of understanding that you keep challenging, I don't know if it's more with disputing the details of an observation, the logic of what follows from what, etc, but they do seem like two different kinds of cases.

True, but why is it being read as a challenge? I don't get that from LIIs--to them, it's a normal discussion. Though to be fair, I often don't try to learn or sort things through from ILEs.

Gul, these really aren't good criteria. Maybe they lean towards NT as a whole, but they don't even seem inconsistent with ILE as a typing. Not to mention the respects in which some of those traits aren't even very good reflections of how Vero behaves in person.

It was more to pre-empt "But LIEs can't be unserious! Wtf!"

But, fair point.

The rest of the list.

This may or may not mean anything depending on the kind of intertype relations you're thinking you two should have according to theory. Even in the case of duals there are tons of things that could put each other off that aren't even type related.

I'm not really thinking of intertypes beyond "This doesn't quite match patterns with other ILEs."

--

Damn dude, you just got this Vero fixation now dontcha?

I guess I don't blame ya though.

You're right. I'm just </3'n that her new hairdo is an UNHOLY TESTAMENT TO EVIL.

[xyz]

You're right. I'm just </3'n that her new hairdo is an UNHOLY TESTAMENT TO EVIL.

In what part of God's green earth is </3 a verb?!

[Warlord]

In what part of God's green earth is </3 a verb?!

smaller-than-divided-by-threeing?

[munenori2]

The rest of the list.

Actually according to that, ILE is spot on. I'm pretty sure anyone from the new york meet would agree.

And I meant challenging like in the sense of bringing up stuff that might be fun to consider or worth considering but after a point it just gets tiring. Like if someone asks how to fry an egg, asking everything under the sun about everything going on, that can be endearing. When it's turned around to the point where the person asking you how to fry an egg is trying to tell you how to fry an egg this other way, which may or may not be better, doesn't matter, you wonder why they are even bothering to ask you how to do it, much less insisting for you to explain how to fry an egg. Do they really want your explanation at all? Is this a waste of time? It's annoying you. So you stop trying.

[marooned]

I think it's mainly that she was trying to give an explanation about what type she thought you were, a sort of all-encompassing explanation that addresses all the points and puts everything together. But you were interjecting with 1001 questions, so she couldn't explain it. It seems that each thing she said perhaps sent your mind on a great many divergent tangents, that connected to other points that you then drew into the discussion as questions ("what about this, that, and this other thing?").

I mean it looks like your mind was both moving really fast and diverging everywhere, and you wanted to address the points that immediately arose as questions, exactly when they would come up. In other words, if you were organizing the discussion it would be a random firing of questions that would each be answered, unless you interrupted with others... so you would be essentially asking the questions at the points that you wanted to build your understanding in the order you want. She would be the sort of "passive-question-answerer" then, and you would be in control of the direction of the discussion.

Her approach was that she would be controlling the direction of the discussion and laying down the entire mass of connections she had constructed about your type, and you would simply listen mostly, and maybe questions would be asked more after if something still wasn't clear.

I think that you wanted to go from specific points to big picture and she was perhaps going the other way (big picture --> specific points). Also as her understanding was well worked out (she had had time to structure it and organize it already) it came in a more finalized package. Your understanding about your type seems more in the works, and not refined yet. So it's coming from two different places in a way, as though you're the batter and she's the already baked bread. What I mean is you're trying to form and organize an understanding, while she is trying to divulge an understanding that is more in the post-forming/organizing stage.

Anyway, I don't know what all of this means in terms of what type either of you are. :tongue: Maybe it's as simple as just saying before hand who will be directing the discussion and how it will go? (At work they call this "conversation set-up". )

[Creepy-male]

Actually according to that, ILE is spot on. I'm pretty sure anyone from the new york meet would agree.

Ah, cool!

I'm still interested in the source of the miscommunication though.

[Wynch]

Ah, cool!

I'm still interested in the source of the miscommunication though.

This is simple, and very well-explained by Loki. You ask me a question, which requires me to build an argument. In order to build an argument, each point needs to connect with others so that you can see the big picture forming. Instead of allowing me to show you how I see it first, then questioning my reasoning after I've built my case, you tend to attack my case without even seeing how it comes together, at which point I don't see why you asked me my opinion in the first place.

Imagine I have a puzzle. You ask me what the picture is on the puzzle and I say that I'll show you. I start building the puzzle and I start by organizing the edges separate from the inside pieces. Why? Because if you want to build a puzzle later, I want you to know how to do it too. Meanwhile you start grabbing pieces that go together and disorganizing the system I'm trying to show you. That's not wrong, but it's frustrating for me when I'm trying to build my puzzle (like you asked me to do). However, I continue to build it anyways and if I'm lucky I'll have the patience to build the frame and start filling in the pieces. Now you see my frame, but you start to disagree with where I put the pieces. I say that a piece fits here and you take it out of my hand and try fitting it in a thousand other places. If you want to build your own puzzle later, that's fine. But again, you asked me to build my puzzle and that's what I'm trying to do here. If you want to see if it can make a different picture afterwards, that's fine. I don't mind discussing why I think this is the best picture that the puzzle makes. However, for now I'm just trying to show you how to build my damn puzzle, because for all intents and purposes, you show little sign of being able to build a puzzle yourself without building random chunks of puzzle at a time.

[1981slater]

Will the Vero 37.0 or maybe 51.4 threads come up soon?