I need a word/definition, help me out please

[Creepy-female]

.

[Korpsy Knievel]

pa·tri·arch·y Noun /ˈpātrēˌärkē/
1) A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line
2) A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it
3) A society or community organized in this way

pa·ter·nal·ism Noun /pəˈtərnlˌizəm/
1) The policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates' supposed best interest

male chauvinism
1) a term used to describe the belief that men are superior to women. It is often used interchangeably with "sexism" and is closely associated with misogyny and perceptions of women as inferior to men, especially intellectually.

Is this dude an LSE?

[Gilly]

Projectionist...paranoid annd lacking natural self-control.

[Gilly]

Is this dude an LSE?

lol right?

[mirrorsoul]

I suppose the words "sexism," "pseudo-intellectual," and "religious conservative" come to mind. I wonder if there's a word for a person who thinks their title justifies their views and makes them correct?

[Gilly]

Sounds like you need a new shrink for sure.

[glam]

he sounds like a presumptuous, small-minded person whom despite his education has remained unworldly and imperceptive, who is also lacking in the kind of emotional awareness that would give him the ability to empathize with and understand you - his apparent overconfidence (whether real or feigned) when making his declarations only adds to the offensiveness of his ignorance.

i don't know how to sum it up in one word/term; that's the best way i can think of atm to summarize this mindset and how it seems to be affecting you.

[Korpsy Knievel]

@ Dolphin: *tip o' the hat* Actually since I thought you'd mentioned reading feminist literature before I was surprised you haven't seen those terms often. Perhaps contemporary fem-lit has moved away from office inequities to focus on contraception ethics and porn critique.

Also, from your description I suspect that your shrink may be crying out for help. :(

[Gilly]

I think that makes some sense. Anger comes up a lot when we talk, and although it isn't absent from me, it's not present in such a magnitude as he's sort of insisted, it's not my primary motivation. He'll be like "How angry do you feel about that?" and I'll be like "Um, angry? I don't think I'm angry, but let's see.." "Have you ever felt like punching someone? Kicking the crap out of them?" "Umm, not really, I mean there are times, sometimes like in my journal"..I proceed to tell some private moment and he proceeds to interpret that since I'm hesitant to share it, it must be some big thing I'm hiding, I feel guilty about it therefore I'm hiding it and I'm ashamed of it and it's my big issue.."I bet you just want to smash window in don't you.." and it's interesting because at that point I will feel a little like smashing the window because I am flustered and I don't know what to believe..I realize I am suggestible..it just didn't occur to me that there would be need to question him..I guess I thought that since he was professional trained in psychiatry I should defer to his knowledge..but I've felt uncomfortable at the answers he's given me..at the sharpness he projects on me..I can match it, ie in our exchange I can act "sharper" and more like the person he expects me to be..and I think this happens pretty easily..but then I realized, there was a graph he was showing about "rage", about internalizing or externalizing anger..and when you are in a reasonable middle zone, and there is something that causes a "spike" in your anger, that's something you need to examine..but after I examined it and was like "no, it can't be"..but it was perfectly accurate to examine HIM. Like I experienced a spike of anger and distrust at HIM. So basically a psychiatrist gave me a tool to evaluate himself, maybe unconciously..and it makes me lol and feel a little weirded out at the same time.

Yeah yo. Drop his ass like a ton of bricks. Don't waste your chi on a single visit to a fuck like that, he's obviously way too self-centered and insecure to do his job properly.

[glam]

He's not really aware of himself, and I feel that if that sort of thought pinged into his brain it would make him rather more neurotic than usual, lol.

yes it could make him more neurotic, but only if he dealt with the awareness with some sort of denial - by trying to bury it, shoving it back and away so that he doesn't have to think about or deal with it directly, and/or while trying to pretend to be something else. if he were to become truly aware of himself, it might rock his world, but in the end i don't think he would be so neurotic anymore - "the truth shall set you free" and all that.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Good idea. If his behavior and approach aren't beneficial for you there's no good reason for you to be working with him.

[EyeSeeCold]

Hey, I was wondering if there is a word, definition, or summary, ie, I know to how describe it, or its characteristics, but I don't know the name. I have got an idea but I'm not sure about it yet. Help me out if you recognize this.

A man who sees women primarily as a species rather than individuals. A trained professional who uses his title as leverage within interaction to somewhat disguise the fact that he doesn't/can't relate to women on an individual level or treat them as unique personalities. Assesses them as if they would be better off separately congregated in a church service/knitting circle to get their needs met because the only way they are going to get their (implied unreasonable) needs met is if they flock like chickens (chickens who do not understand/accept the cold hard realities of life). Refers to religious memes as a way to control one's inner demons. Subtly continually implies/insists that my silly, henpecked inner life revolves around anger, and that I live from a sense of Ego that desires to control others.

#1 LSE
#2 Old fashioned
#3 LII

[Gilly]

#1 LSE
#2 Old fashioned
#3 LII

You're LII

Just so you know

[EyeSeeCold]

You're LII

Just so you know

1 Your perspective is right, the actuality is that I am LII, and my perspective is wrong.

2 Your perspective is wrong, the actuality is that I am ILI, and my perspective is right.

3 Your perspective is wrong, the actuality is that I am some other type, and my perspective is wrong.

I am inclined towards option # 2.

If you can't see my "If this, then that; else this" nature, then you fail at ILI tracking. Besides, I'm past the point of needing outside confirmation; where I'm at, if I was wrong about ILI, it would be a cataclysmic realization, nothing less than "biblical".


Lol. Are you really EIE? I see you're trying to throw off my foundation of belief.

[Gilly]

1 Your perspective is right, the actuality is that I am LII, and my perspective is wrong.

2 Your perspective is wrong, the actuality is that I am ILI, and my perspective is right.

3 Your perspective is wrong, the actuality is that I am some other type, and my perspective is wrong.

I am inclined towards option # 2.

Surprise...

If you can't see my "If this, then that; else this" nature, then you fail at ILI tracking.

Actually that kind of natural, innate use of Boolean logic is about as symptomatic of Ti in the ego as it gets. Te is generally much more simplistic/explicit than symbolic logic.

Also the Architect is an archetypal LII, from Alpha, the "generative" quadra.

Besides, I'm past the point of needing outside confirmation; where I'm at, if I was wrong about ILI, it would be a cataclysmic realization, nothing less than "biblical".

www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DL0AiN8vrn9Y

Funny, I don't think an irrational type would have such a hard time coping with a simple change in perspective.

Lol. Are you really EIE? I see you're trying to throw off my foundation of belief.

No and no, but I kind of play one here on the forum. I'm most likely ILE.

[EyeSeeCold]

Actually that kind of natural, innate use of Boolean logic is about as symptomatic of Ti in the ego as it gets. Te is generally much more simplistic/explicit than symbolic logic.

It's not Boolean logic.

It's a conditional argument / statement for programming / determining action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

Also the Architect is an archetypal LII, from Alpha, the "generative" quadra.

The avatar has nothing to do with my actual type. Though I realize his apparent , I am still undecided on the Architect's type.

Oh and I get, so then Beta is the degenerative quadra.

www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DL0AiN8vrn9Y

Funny, I don't think an irrational type would have such a hard time coping with a simple change in perspective.

It's not a simple change in perspective. As I've said, I'm at a point where it is my understanding that I am ILI and I have confirmed it pragmatically. You are trying to debase my Vital understanding and beliefs and I cannot and will not let it happen so easily.

Irrationality is indirectly relevant.

[Gilly]

It's not Boolean logic.

It's a conditional argument / statement for programming / determining action.

...which is basically what Boolean/symbolic logicares the most abstract forms/lowest common denominators of. I founded a class at my high school, a highly-regarded New England boarding school, about symbolic logic, so pulling a fast one is unadvised :wink:

Oh and I get, so then Beta is the degenerative quadra.

More like the destructive quadra. But don't expect me to be offended; I'm leaning Alpha for myself these days.

It's not a simple change in perspective.

It is if you don't put an unnecessary force of self-perception into it. It's just a label.

As I've said, I'm at a point where it is my understanding that I am ILI and I have confirmed it pragmatically. You are trying to debase my Vital understanding and beliefs and I cannot and will not let it happen so easily.

*shrug* Think whatever you like; I don't know that I've ever seen an ILI take such a black-and-white stance on something as uncertain and open to interpretation as personality typology. You don't seem anything remotely like an ILI to me; currently I'm thinking LSI>/=LII>ILE. So don't expect to tout your type openly, or make any kind of references dependent on your being ILI, without me being there to question you actively, because quite frankly you are a very, very clear exemplar of a Ti type's style of diction and behavior to me. Nothing personal; I just can't see you as ILI at all.

[EyeSeeCold]

...which is basically what Boolean/symbolic logicares the most abstract forms/lowest common denominators of.

Material conditioning has no instructions for 0 or FALSE operations. Only 1 or True. Therefore it is not Boolean logic. They are not the same thing.

I founded a class at my high school, a highly-regarded New England boarding school, about symbolic logic, so pulling a fast one is unadvised :wink:

Is this supportive of your grasp of logic? One can derive from this context that the people who highly regard your New England boarding school and let you found a class are uninformed themselves. Furthermore, just because you claim any of this does not make it true.

It is if you don't put an unnecessary force of self-perception into it. It's just a label.

You don't have Vital .

*shrug* Think whatever you like; I don't know that I've ever seen an ILI take such a black-and-white stance on something as uncertain and open to interpretation as personality typology. You don't seem anything remotely like an ILI to me; currently I'm thinking LSI>/=LII>ILE. So don't expect to tout your type openly, or make any kind of references dependent on your being ILI, without me being there to question you actively, because quite frankly you are a very, very clear exemplar of a Ti type's style of diction and behavior to me. Nothing personal; I just can't see you as ILI at all.

Okay, I get it. You're joking.

You had me fooled, thinking you were serious.

[Gilly]

Material conditioning has no instructions for 0 or FALSE operations. Only 1 or True. Therefore it is not Boolean logic. They are not the same thing.

Points for being a walking textbook. My general point stands: that kind of natural symbolic logic-esque thinking is concurrent with you being a Ti ego.

Is this supportive of your grasp of logic? One can derive from this context that the people who highly regard your New England boarding school and let you found a class are uninformed themselves.

Right, the fact that I referenced Boolean logic in a flexible manner implies that my boarding school is trash. Jesus, how fucking retarded are you? Your logic is mathematically fine but your common sense fucking sucks.

Furthermore, just because you claim any of this does not make it true.

HOLY HELL REALLY?

You don't have to believe me. I can set up a conference webcam chat with my professor tonight if you'd like.

You don't have Vital .

Ok. And how do you arrive at this conclusion? Because Vital Ti types take it personally when their types are questioned? Give me a break. It's not this simple. You are being too Ti

Okay, I get it. You're joking.

You had me fooled, thinking you were serious.

HURRRRRR

[Creepy-male]

Hey, I was wondering if there is a word, definition, or summary, ie, I know to how describe it, or its characteristics, but I don't know the name. I have got an idea but I'm not sure about it yet. Help me out if you recognize this.

A man who sees women primarily as a species rather than individuals. A trained professional who uses his title as leverage within interaction to somewhat disguise the fact that he doesn't/can't relate to women on an individual level or treat them as unique personalities. Assesses them as if they would be better off separately congregated in a church service/knitting circle to get their needs met because the only way they are going to get their (implied unreasonable) needs met is if they flock like chickens (chickens who do not understand/accept the cold hard realities of life). Refers to religious memes as a way to control one's inner demons. Subtly continually implies/insists that my silly, henpecked inner life revolves around anger, and that I live from a sense of Ego that desires to control others.

On a side note, that might not be related to the definition, but information I felt was important: This individual makes me feel uncomfortable. I desire to be open in his presence in order to learn more about psychological processes in order to be the best person I can be, and yet I continually feel misinterpreted. I am aware that he can come up with strange sounding definitions using psychological terms, that put me in a sort of category where I am out motivated to fuck everybody up for my own personal gain. However this makes me feel sad and confused because I do not feel I have this motivations. Although I want to acknowledge everything in myself in order to come from the best, most objectively possible, good, compassionate, knowledgeable world/self view and be the most aware/spiritually connected person I can be, I just do not feel that I have the sort of motivations he assigns to me slightly carelessly. His eyes are defensive, his words attacking, as if we're in a battle of wits, as if our "inner demons" are having a go at eachother, and I think it's rather silly. He waves his hand as if it is over, the judgment is set in stone, and now another hand wave, because he has go on and prescribe the next person's unconcious evil designs, their bad, selfishly driven motivations.

I realize I may be exaggerating, ideally I'd like to describe this without exaggeration, but I feel like I'm pointing to something intangible which can hardly be described if not with exaggeration, so take that as an attempted picture of a mindset, and not some sort of built in bias of mine to the traits. If I could find value in them, I would love to. But at this point they seem like negative jabs and punches and although I've tried to understand it coming from the mindset of discipline, where something that hurts temporarily benefits a person long term, I cannot see what is helpful about these psychological punches. It doesn't make sense to me that one would motivate themselves by this mindset.

I guess the difference might be a couple of pieces of writing, where you go to find insight over a situation you've faced; the first that can be summed up as "This situation happened because you have some negative, self driven bad motive due to your inherantly bad human nature, you need to "fix" it and adjust to the fact that you are wrong for it, get over yourself" and the second is more like "Look at this as a growth experience, seeing the changes you can make within your life doesn't have to be negative, I know you tried your best, help yourself practice some self forgiveness, this is a learning experience"..

I've run into this sort of mindset before, I think, and I'm trying to figure out if there's a pattern to it or not. Also I feel like this might be addressing more than one issue, I had an idea for the first part, but somehow this ties into some sort of bigger concept I've been wondering about. I've made some connections already and I'm interested in the connections others make about this as well as if any of mine overlap with theirs.

You need to get a new psyciarist bad, listening to this is painful, I know I personally struggle internally with the kind of conflict that goes on between you two.

You want to be kind and compassionate, he wants to master his anger and control things. I think he's projecting this need he has for mastery onto others. I think in fact he is working through personal issues but projects these onto others and feels as though he is both helping himself and others at the same time, when in fact he could be interfering with your innocence by inciting you into anger and control issues that aren't even manifest.

I deal with that issue internally mainly, I'll go through life trying to be kind and nice and then snap to going in a mood were I want to just dominate like a badass, but then feel guilty. It sounds like this guys projections are causing an intensity in this internal conflict in you.

Sound epic kind of, go retreat into deep buddhist training master your anger then come back and school his sorry ass in a test of wills. He starts making claims about you, you begin questioning them.... "but master isn't anger only....." said in a mixture of keanu reeves/ian mckellen/liam neeson, eventually he looses his cool after a length dialgoue battle/test of wills and he pulls out a katana and exposes his true nature and you fight to the death, confident as you have mastered and trancended your anger you win the battle, afterwhich you free all his students, teach them to believe in themselves and not the guru, then retreat to peaceful serenity having overthrown the tyrant.

Lol.... but then again I realize reality isn't like that..... hahaha but whatever

I think you need to choose your teacher, it has to be a connection like anything else, don't trust credentials, look for a connection that is intuitive and natural.

[EyeSeeCold]

List of people not to take seriously:
George W. Bush Jr.
Drunken homeless people
Most conspirators
E-thugs
Fake thugs
Women
Gilly

There you go.

[Gilly]

Yessssss, I officially have a new adversary. It's been so long.

Too bad you're totally unworthy, considering my past competition...Ashton, DJ, strrrng and the likes will be disgraced to count such blundering midst their numbers.

[Jimbean]

Maybe his wife or something is a b!tch and he is projecting that unto other women. I'm not saying that it is right, but women do the same thing to men, only don't verbalize it as much.

[Beautiful sky]

You don't have Vital .

He does.

[Creepy-male]

Maybe his wife or something is a b!tch and he is projecting that unto other women. I'm not saying that it is right, but women do the same thing to men, only don't verbalize it as much.

Oh god no, great now we will have to deal with vero appearing and all the other people.... no sir no.... women never make mistakes!

[EyeSeeCold]

He does.

Meant Dem . If I don't have a clear understanding of the work I can't move forward at all. It takes awhile for me to develop a reasonable understanding and when I do it's frustrating to take in new systems / structures.

Basically, I don't like to change my positions frequently; I'm pretty conservative in that regard.

[Beautiful sky]

Meant Dem . If I don't have a clear understanding of the work I can't move forward at all. It takes awhile for me to develop a reasonable understanding and when I do it's frustrating to take in new systems / structures.

Basically, I don't like to change my positions frequently; I'm pretty conservative in that regard.

yes he does (demonstrate it)