I don't try to impress crowds. I enjoy getting positive feedback from the audience, but everything I do is personal.Originally Posted by force my hand
My reply was satirical. The point is that these conversations never go anywhere and amount to the same cliched platitudes being tossed back and forth. I am intricately aware of the nuances of morality and the ways in which preexisting ethical guidelines are necessary for the preservation of civilization, I don't need to hear about it in a topic that clearly makes a deliberate and self-aware effort to vent out a particular set of values. It's just the same old annoying bullshit, and storming in and pissing on the parade like you did amounts to nothing more than trolling. I get that you were probably just trying to have a friendly discussion, and I understand that you're not paying attention to the Fe atmosphere when you enter a topic, but there's a reason why I don't go into Delta and start kindling a flame war between Beta and Delta values. That's what these discussions will always result in. Pure fire.For example, your initial reply to me was facetious: "They disagree with people choosing to be happy?" Well, of course not. And when I didn't rise to the bait, you made it clear you willingly misconstrued my point: "You obviously don't understand underhanded comments". Yeah I do, but that's not debating, that's a pissing match.
Look at the topic I recently made in Delta. It was about nothing more than how Peter Schiff's LSE psyche happened to be advantageous in his field, and how he manages to beleaguer N types with his square ST analysis. The difference between what I wrote and what you wrote is that I didn't scrape against any futile, practically irreconcilable topic like quadra ethics.
Imagine there were a topic in Delta about how some asshole SLE guy said something extremely insensitive that caused great emotional distress to the author of the topic, and fellow Deltas came in an offered condolences. Maybe one or two Betas or Gammas come in and make a few idle, impartial observations. Everything is fine until I blast through the door and tactlessly defend the SLE from the standpoint of predictable Beta values: "Well maybe if you actually made SENSE he would have known what to say!" Nevermind that I already know that the Delta response is that he shouldn't have to be told to think about other people, I'm going to make them accept the merits of what I have to say; I'm coming in anyway and if your use Fi or Ne at me, you're missing the point.
I resorted to such maneuvering because real communication was futile in such a charged atmosphere, and I was irritated at the invasion. Fire with fire. Not rational, sure, but I don't think unreasonable. I could have handled it more effectively, but I have a horrible temper and can't always think clearly when I start flaring up.It's a rhetorical tactic akin to the loaded question or at least loaded language. They're not logical fallacies in the strict sense, but they are designed for emotional rather than logical appeal. If you're such a Ti powerhouse, why resort to tactics that I can see through clear as day, and why resort to Fe? Unless the point is to whack my POLR for the fun of it? Mischevious, but as you say above, hard to do on this medium. So why even bother?
I wouldn't laugh at someone using Fi in such a manner; I would get pissed off, and my reaction (i.e. whether or not I would try to be diplomatic or offensive) would depend on how reasonable they were being. I probably falsely interpreted your arrival as one with hostile intent, but I am used to having our Delta ST culture march in and... well, it's like I'm trying to play chess, and an LSE comes in and shouts "BURRR STOP WASTING TIME WITH STORIES AND DIGITS" and flips over the board, then pulls his pants down and sits on my face. Yeah... I might be too defensive, but it's a programmed response to a kind of perpetual emotional dictation. Sometimes Delta feels like thought police, to be honest.It's like me employing Fi in an attempt to disarm you - it might impress someone else, but you're just going to laugh since it's completely missing the point. Or, I suppose in a way I'm potentially hitting your POLR, I don't know. In the absence of solid, peer-reviewed science, I'll take Socionics explanations with a grain of salt.
But what is interesting about that last thing you said is that it shows your Fe polr pretty clearly: "you're just going to laugh since it's completely missing the point." Your missing the point would make me irritated and/or angry--it certainly wouldn't make me laugh. Nothing is more frustrating to me than someone who is so caught up in their biases (or is deliberately trolling) that they don't listen to reason while I'm being reasonable to them. Whenever I hear Kim fart out fallacy after fallacy about how her experience with socialized health care in Germany is proof that it works (confabulation fallacy), I assume she is correct for the sake of argument despite her fallacy, knowing that even illogical/silly things can be true, then I go and research what it was she was recounting to actually see if there was any truth behind it.
So when I see someone who misses the point and who has ulterior motives that go beyond simple objectivity, I get angry, because they represent the antithesis of what I consider proper open-minded discourse. I know people are flawed and it's self-defeating, etc., but it's a deeply coded frustration at what feels like deliberate sabotage. Sure, I wasn't being objective in this topic either, but I truly saw no point. Maybe that's just Ne polr. I have no idea. I know I am being a hypocrite since I was being outlandish and hostile and biased, etc. But I was doing it out of a sense of futility, not out of pure quadra bias.
Reply With Quote
4w5 sp/sx
