Type Stereotypes Need To Be Broken.
I most of this is wrong but this just goes to show how crap peoples understanding of socionics is including mine.
ILI , Loner , Bitter , Smart Alec.
LIE , Workaholic , Can't Relax , Can't have fun.
Feel free to contribute more stereotypes and to break them too.
This need to be sorted out I am sick of it.
SEE- whores.
Ah, we're collecting stereotypes.
How are we going to break them?
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Only the incorrect ones need be broken.
I was thinking the same. some SEE can be really picky about who they date. And also wait a long time for mister right. it's actually also written in the subtype descriptions of medgved.Originally Posted by sarinana
ILIs controlling their emotions to the point of never letting them out, or denying they have them, (which in reality causes mild anger management issues) yes I've been angry, I've been sad, but I've had a hard time realizing it
and basically types knowing nothing of their unvalued functions, especially PoLR when the information is written down right in front of you
generally certain restrictions that are uncommon of humans
Yes, but... if we just list them, that will only strengthen them. It takes a fair amount a concentration to erase something from your mind by reading it - someone idly reading this thread (as most people will) will simply remember the stereotypes more strongly.
In order to break a stereotype, we need to contrast it with the truth of the matter, and clearly support the truth over the stereotype. I.e., with the ILI stereotype - when is an ILI not a lonely, bitter smart alec? "Sometimes" is imo not a good enough answer to break the stereotype - the answer that breaks the stereotype must be clearer (in terms of how it is expressed, not how true it is) than the stereotype itself.
I sort of feel like a hypocrite, since it wasn't long ago that I believed that no falsehood should be defeated by a method that doesn't in itself prove it to be a falsehood.(I guess what makes this different is that we all know that these aren't really true - we just have trouble getting them out of our heads.)
Last edited by Brilliand; 08-31-2009 at 12:52 AM.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
that one stereotype isn't true because this one time my brother who is that type did something different than that
IEE-Ne | ENFP | 4w3-6w7-9w1 so/sp/sx | sCoA|I| | Sanguine/Choleric | Benevolent Inventor
birthday frog wishes you a happy birthday
birthday frog will give you presents and a card on your birthday
birthday frog is Fe incarnate
This isn't a stereotype – if anything, quite the opposite, as a very small portion of the people in the community espouse it. IMO it acts more as a counter-stereotype, something which questions and potentially undermines a more overriding stereotype – that being, the notion that humans have cognitive access to all eight functions on a fundamental level.
Which means you can shut up now.
4w3-5w6-8w7
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
You just reworded my example with a different explanation, nevertheless it still being an example.
Shall we say - a thing does not need to be commonly accepted to be a stereotype?
Does an only occasionally accepted wrong stereotype still need to be broken?
Do we need to address the false assumption that all ants are red?
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Stereotypes don't really need to be broken. They just need to be overused to the point of annoyance.
This wouldnt be such a problem if people on this forum weren't so busy masterbating over types & their relations, as much as actually going out and see what these people are ACTUALLY like.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" isand not
When everyone is yelling about breaking the stereotypes, they break, even if no one has any idea what they're doing.Everyone just mistakes the stereotypes as stereotypes of themselves being mad.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
No, I certainly did not. You claimed that it was a stereotype, which implies that it is something generally conceived of and overused. I pointed out that this was not the case, as it is only "used" by a few individuals in the entire community and has no overarching implications (i.e. like the idea of Se being imposing force, does).
4w3-5w6-8w7
You're suggesting that I must pay attention to everyone, versus say those with an outrageously stupid conception of most humans. If you read my solution of overusing stereotypes to the point of annoyance, you should notice how relevant this is to a stereotype.
No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm pointing out that something can't be defined as a stereotype until it becomes an over-generalized platitude. The notion that we only use our quadra functions, does not meet that criteria at all, as it isn't even accepted on a collective level. What is so hard for you to understand here?
4w3-5w6-8w7
Think outside the box.
On the chance that this was not sarcastic:
Some people seek to fight stereotypes by hiding them, while others seek to fight them by showing them. Unfortunately, this results in them becoming moderately common, and thus stable.
Being well-known is not a necessary part of the definition of "stereotype"; a statement is a stereotype or not regardless of people's knowledge of it. (The stereotype-ness of a statement is not fully independent of reality, as it depends on the reality of its subject matter, but it does not depend on how prevalent and therefore damaging it is.)
I suppose you must be reasoning from the word "platitude" (which I am not sure of the definition of), since "over-generalized" isn't relevant to your argument.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
there's no box, just you having trouble reading. brilliand you are wrong, a stereotype does rely on the general social acceptance or at least acknowledgement of it. otherwise you have no way of differentiating a stereotype from the generalized ramblings of some schizophrenic bum in the alley .. 'stereotype' and 'generalization' are not the same word. go look up the definition of the word if you have to. in the meantime stop spreading your nonsense.
Edit: I have saved you the effort
Definition of stereotype:
ster⋅e⋅o⋅type
/ˈstɛriəˌtaɪp, ˈstɪər-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ster-ee-uh-tahyp, steer-] Show IPA noun, verb, -typed, -typ⋅ing.
Use stereotype in a Sentence
See web results for stereotype
See images of stereotype
–noun
1. a process, now often replaced by more advanced methods, for making metal printing plates by taking a mold of composed type or the like in papier-mâché or other material and then taking from this mold a cast in type metal.
2. a plate made by this process.
3. a set form; convention.
4. Sociology. a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group: The cowboy and Indian are American stereotypes.
–verb (used with object)
5. to make a stereotype of.
6. to characterize or regard as a stereotype: The actor has been stereotyped as a villain.
7. to give a fixed form to.
Last edited by crazedrat; 08-31-2009 at 04:22 AM.
Is this supposed to be ironic?
No, I am not referring to a "stereotypical" statement, one which is trite and hollow; I am speaking of the idea of stereotype, which entails collective acceptance, on some level, and commonly-used terminology.
I'm reasoning from the word stereotype – the one crazed provided a definition for. To refresh your memory:suppose you must be reasoning from the word "platitude" (which I am not sure of the definition of), since "over-generalized" isn't relevant to your argument.
It should be blatantly clear now.Sociology. a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group
Yeah, anyone can repeat some banal claim, doesn't mean anything. It's about social regurgitation.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Okay, this makes the issue clear enough. What is your source? I think that this is a poor definition, but I also think that it actually was meant to mean what I mean but was worded poorly. Here is a better-worded definition:
Stereotype - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is my breakdown of the given definition:
A stereotype is a concept or image that is:
- Simplified and standardized
- Invested with special meaning
- considered to be held in common by members of a group
How do I justify adding those three words? It is an easy mistake to make when writing a definition: the last phrase of the definition was simply given from the wrong perspective. The Wikipedia entry shows that my view of the word is not strange.
Social regurgitation is a stereotypical act - it is not, however, part of what makes a stereotype a stereotype (unless the phrase changes meaning from a generalization, which acknowledges exceptions, to a stereotype, which does not, via reinterpretation by different people - which is a side effect in any case).
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
That is fine, although your new position is different from this:
Which leaves these nuances unacknowledged. The perception of it being well known IS necessary (assuming we are accepting the wikipedia definition.). And you will find the addition of this nuance reframes your response to strrrngs original argument.
Since strrrngs post pointed out the stereotype (dubbed stereotype for reference) was not held in common by a particular group (us); but we only acknowledge such a stereotype must NOT exist, there is no actual commonality of belief for a person to perceive. And I know we can agree any suspicion of a community shared belief in this instance could only be a delusion. Furthermore we have no reason to believe, among those who accept the stereotypes premise, there is such a delusion. Before this delusion is observed there is no reason to consider the belief a stereotype.
Last edited by crazedrat; 08-31-2009 at 07:04 AM.
No, it very much is necessary to render a stereotype – the core process, in fact. There is no change from 'generalization' to 'stereotype' because a stereotype very much can harbor exceptions, albeit latently; that is irrelevant to the essential meaning.
4w3-5w6-8w7
yes, how would a stereotype form without social regurgitation? how else could there be established in the believers mind a perceived shared commonality of belief? Through a sheer expectation the belief is acknowledged? I don't think such a sheer expectation is possible if it's not being based on the positions of others. Any expectation I have for others is only built on top of what I've come to experience from them as regular behavior.
No. This is a reference, firstly, to try to focus beyond what is simply correct, and to focus on the actual similarities in various socionical problems were attributing to the stereotypical. There is your irony.Is this supposed to be ironic?
This would be the forward thinking process of my point.
okay, so basically change of subject. no problem
polikjum is just too much of a forward thinker for us stereotypical folks.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Hold on there pussy cat. The forward thinking process is the reverse of mine in this case, as you can see as Brilliand points out, it isn't effective.
That just made up for everything else you said.
I could imagine you drunk. I could picture you saying: I don't even drink, so I have no idea why I'm *hicup* drunk right now...burp... *topples over*
I would sacrifice Satan and turn him into the broodwich and then gain the great fairy sword as a reward.
In fact, the whole process would be too easy.
You hold on, pussy cat. You are not entitled to whimsically delete posts on this forum because you need to backpedal, or are unwilling to stand behind what you said, or have any other bullshit reason. This wouldn't be a problem if you didn't do it so incessantly, but it detracts from discussions. I come back from fuckin ghettoville a few hours after making a post, and your reply to me is gone. Just man up and stand by your words.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I actually just don't want to talk to you for a while, that's why I deleted it.
You've misunderstood me, but it doesn't matter; I've discovered that the Wikipedia entry does support Strrrng's position.
A stereotype is a special case of a consensus.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
IEI-Fe 4w3
That is not a justification at all for deleting posts – such an act does not in any way affect your subsequent communication with me, as they have already been read and duly responded to. Now, if you don't want to talk to someone, you ignore them; do not fuck with threads by backpedaling over your own footsteps to remold the communication to your fancies.
And if you're really feeling that uncommunicative, maybe a temporary banning would be good.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Ok. Gammas aren't supposed to be on this forum anyway.That is not a justification at all for deleting posts – such an act does not in any way affect your subsequent communication with me, as they have already been read and duly responded to. Now, if you don't want to talk to someone, you ignore them; do not fuck with threads by backpedaling over your own footsteps to remold the communication to your fancies.
And if you're really feeling that uncommunicative, maybe a temporary banning would be good.
Which is why you are.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Well, yes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
