implicit systems TR??!?!?!

[ashlesha]

inspired by something said in the chatbox:

labster Yesterday 11:49 PM
"slavoj zizek said something sensible (for a change) on that topic; that the worst thing you can do in a totalitarian system is explicitly spell out what the implicit rules are (for example not contradicting stalin)."

_________________________


how comfortable are you navigating in a framework where the rules are implicit?
do you feel compelled to pull the rules out and make them explicit?

would you attribute this at all to type? rational/irrational? N/S? or NTR?

sorry if this is unclear, i could try to clarify with specific questions.

[Gilly]

When a system has implicit rules that I find myself in accord with, I tend to abide by them silently and try to help out people who aren't quite catching on. However when there are implicit rules that I disagree with, I take a certain pleasure in exposing them.

[Ryan]

meh

rules are meant to be broken

for the record, I have always typed lab LSI, and his statement sounds very beta

[Ryan]

another person I type LSI is Pa3s

[ashlesha]

lol ok

[Absurd]

"slavoj zizek said something sensible (for a change) on that topic; that the worst thing you can do in a totalitarian system is explicitly spell out what the implicit rules are (for example not contradicting stalin)."

I don't get what that guy meant when he said that.

how comfortable are you navigating in a framework where the rules are implicit?
do you feel compelled to pull the rules out and make them explicit?

a) Fine, don't focus on them at all for they are implicit,

b) No, the person who made them implicit in the first place is responsible for any kind of inconvenience.

would you attribute this at all to type? rational/irrational? N/S? or NTR?

Not sure. I would lean towards irrationality though.

[Korpsy Knievel]

http://history.hanover.edu/courses/e.../165havel.html

[Absurd]

I still don't get this thread, what is it about, anyway?

[mu4]

I don't think it matters much if the rules are implicit or explicit. But rather the rules themselves are what matters. A rule like not contradicting Stalin is oppressive, a rule to clean up your dog poop off the streets reasonable. Also the mechanism of enforcement is also important depending on the rule. A system where rules, implicit and explicit are enforced despotically may make even the most lenient rules oppressive, while a system that enforces rules haphazardly might be seen as corrupt or ineffective.

Generally modern democratic systems are made to have a balance of power between competitive cooperative sides in order to prevent the oppressive imbalance of any one group.

[Absurd]

A rule like not contradicting Stalin is oppressive

Seriously, I need to get wasted. I mean, the longer amount of time I stay sober, the less I know what certain people are talking about.

a rule to clean up your dog poop off the streets reasonable.

It's the same rule as above, but you do not consider it oppressive, you consider it reasonable. It could be issued by Stalin himself...

A system where rules, implicit and explicit are enforced despotically may make even the most lenient rules oppressive, while a system that enforces rules haphazardly might be seen as corrupt or ineffective.

How can you enforce something implicit and at the same time demand from citizens that they obey(?) something they don't have a clue about? Even explicit rules are not enforced all of the time, at least not where I come from.

Generally modern democratic systems are made to have a balance of power between competitive cooperative sides in order to prevent the oppressive imbalance of any one group.

What is competitive cooperative? Competition is derogatory towards cooperativeness unless both cooperative subjects compete against some other.

[mu4]

Seriously, I need to get wasted. I mean, the longer amount of time I stay sober, the less I know what certain people are talking about.

It's the same rule as above, but you do not consider it oppressive, you consider it reasonable. It could be issued by Stalin himself...

How can you enforce something implicit and at the same time demand from citizens that they obey(?) something they don't have a clue about? Even explicit rules are not enforced all of the time, at least not where I come from.

What is competitive cooperative? Competition is derogatory towards cooperativeness unless both cooperative subjects compete against some other.

Just because you're ignorant of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Unless you think you're omniscient or something. I bet you don't know 99% of the explicit rules that are written in the legal framework of your government's documents.

Regardless of your level of ignorance, in human communication, a vast number of implicit consequences and demands are being communicated. Veiled communication is as much a part of human social experience as is explicit communication and often individuals will veil threats and consequences in communication to facilitate certain agreements.

Anyways, people are often in competition and cooperation simultaneously, since our lives occupy more than one instant of time.

Now, since you need to get wasted, you should go get wasted.

[Absurd]

Just because you're ignorant of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Unless you think you're omniscient or something. I bet you don't know 99% of the explicit rules that are written in the legal framework of your government's documents.

If you don't have a sense of humour, don't try to be funny, I happened to lick both local and international law, I had to so to speak, to remain in the field.

Now, since you need to get wasted, you should go get wasted.

I concur, ignorance is bliss, hkkmr. Smile. God loves you.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Most social situations have a host or leader. If there wasn't, there would probably be sociopathic chaos - so I'm okay with this.

The main rule is to not piss off the moderators too much, and in groups like that- that's where I have most fun. They are the only ones that have the ability to limit your stay etc.

In explicit rule set, like the television without pity message boards (ugh) conversation is very strained and annoying. people are afraid to say anything because it might go against their many rules.

Still my personal pet peeve, since like strrrng said - I am an INFp and protecting the vulnerable is what we are all about, I hate how the moderation in this forum has a huge tendency to target the 'weaker sociopaths' but they don't have the balls to go for the big dogs. So they basically let some people get away with some fucked up shit because they are secretly turned on by the cruelty but they don't really let it show - because they also have to be nice to the people who just want peace and friendly dialogue.

The leaders in any institution dictate what sorts of discussions take place, how much is allowed - and if there is no clear leader or the leaders are weak (such as make examples of people who do evil things but are much easier to bully), then the forum descends into social sociopathy. Then i just get bored and leave.

As a bleeding-heart liberal ******, I hate hate hate hate scapegoats and targetting the 'easiest person.' Throw up in my mouth.

[717495]

Idk how to address the OP in the context of Socionics but I prefer implicit standards to be subject to the individual and not some kind of honor code. I don't dig that stuff—my drum goes a different beat, actually, would be surprised if I had a drum. ie:

[FDG]

Implict rules leave much more bargaining power to those who are in an authority position, since they are not constrained by any explicit legislative body (even if they possess the ability to change the laws, they will still have to go through the hassle of an additional stage). This is especially true in a nondemocratic society where a disagreement over an implict rule won't be solved by a supposedly impartial court. Type related? You would first need to relate a certain love for having a upper hand in bargaining to certain types. Then perhaps an hypothesis could be spelled out.