Delta NFs, taste (and Spartacus)

[Kim]

I decided to open a thread rather than cluttering up Gem's VI thread (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-me-by-MY-FACE)


Re: gore and porn (because I cannot help myself).

I do not think that anyone's sociotype can be determined by what s/he likes or enjoys, but rather by how s/he processes information.

I know the gore part in Gem's thread is again a reference to my Spartacus thread. I watched Spartacus during a time in which I was very depressed and without drive. I was unable to self-dualize and I was without the 6-year-long Se input from my (Se) SLE ex that I had gotten used to. I am a 7w6 sx/sp and that is a soul crushing state to be in because stagnation and fear (I was very afraid and didn't know why) sabotages my natural inclination to experience. I remember watching Spartacus and feeling to some extent energized by the sensory overload. The cinematography was amazing, the colors vibrant, and the stories about resistance and freedom and suffering and surviving reminded me that these are real things out there. I needed this sort of exposure to be reminded that the world is not stagnant and that there is not just the fear and hopelessness I was feeling at the time. Of course it is a tv show, but I had no other recourse. I was in sensory wasteland, so at least for the time in which I was watching, I felt energized and less *in my head.*

With regards to violence in general and *being able to stand it as a Delta NF,* I want to know about people and their stories. That is part of my life and some stories are horrible and sad and people get hurt. I feel personally that exposing myself to stories of violence or emotional trauma (fictional or otherwise) is a way of trying to understand their story. I think that if they can endure it, at least I can acknowledge it and try and get a sense of the horrors. I am lucky in that I have never been a victim of violence, so I feel like I am in a position to expose myself to this and try to understand. It is not for everyone, but the fact that I can deal with representations of violence is not type-related. My motivations for doing so might be.

I have really come to appreciate the combination of sociotype and enneagram because it accounts for so many differences you might observe in people of the same type.

That being said, I am afraid my occasional exposures to porn have far less complex reasons.

[anndelise]

Regarding Gore and Porn, I will paste what I wrote in that thread.

Even though I have spent time observing people in different sexual practices, porn and most sexual things create 'icky' feelings in me. I can theoretically talk about sexual practices and the psychologies involved, and even joke some, but I have had to spend a lot of time desensitizing myself as an emotional protective measure. Even in romance books I usually skip the sex scenes. I have even ended relationships because I would not tolerate porn in the home.

As for gore. I'm having difficulty remembering the last movie/show i saw which had a lot of blood, deaths and such. Perhaps that vampire show with sukie? Or that "winter is coming" one...i don't remember how much gore/violence it has. I tend to ignore those parts or even roll my eyes if they are there just for gore value and not necessary to the story. I'm usually not focused on the things on the screen, but the relationships, motives, and events. I want to know why someone did something and how they felt when they did it, or when they experienced something. What is it like to be in their shoes? How will they handle the fall out? etc. The psychological aspects. I have not seen schindler's list because I thought it might be too intense psychologically for me, considering the subject matter. I've recently thought that maybe i should watch schindler's list, but if it has unnecessary violence in the story, then I probably won't. I've had no desire to see spartacus.

There is more to it, to why I feel the way I do about porn, sex, nudity, blood, violence, etc., but I don't feel this forum is a safe enough place to go into that much depth.

While I have worked towards desensitizing myself regarding sex/nudity, I have never felt much of a need/desire to do so for violence, blood, etc. I tend to avoid most violent movies because of a combination of empathizing with the characters and flashback emotions. It's just too intense for me. I also usually avoid zombie movies because part of that genre involves outdoing each other in gorey effects. This applies to most other horror stories as well...both psychological and gorey effects. However, I admit that I liked Shawn of the Dead wherein zombies were kept as pets and/or slaves. Not because I agree, but I found the concept interesting and the comedic taste helped. I also cannot even play horror genre games, nor watch others play them. Richard used to love Silent Hill and Resident Evil games...I would hide off in my room when he would play. Though once in a while I would force myself to stay and watch a little, but I think I would require much more refined desensitisation process for this part of the topic, heh.

Other types of shows, where the emphasis isn't on blood, guts, melting skin, nor constant sex scenes, but focuses on story and relationships ...it's easier to overlook or skip over those less parts less tasteful to me.

----

As to the other part of the OP, I agree that Sociotype is about the types of information we prefer, rather than specific likes/dislikes. I think personal experiences influence HOW we interpret a type of information. Our experiences provide us lenses for looking at the world, while sociotype would be more like the strength and location of the incoming information (sorta like glasses for nearsighted eyes, farsighted eyes, etc and their strength levels...20/20, 20/30, etc). As for motivations, and what we DO with that info and our perceptions, I think that is where Enneagram can help explain.

Basically, I think an NeFi from a wealthy city upbringing will perceive the world differently from one raised in the city ghettos, and they will both perceive the world differently than one raised in the woods or on a farm, or even in a monostary. They all can have ego NeFi (and all that socionically entails..such as Si DS, Te HA, Ti polr, etc), but their differing experiences will lead them to differing conclusions.

Add in enneagram, and even a ghetto raised 7w8 will react differently to the world than a same ghetto raised 6w5, 9w1, etc.

Socionically speaking, when I say that I am NeFi, I am informing the person that I feel that NeFi describes what is going on in my mind, how I look at the world, what information I attend to, which types of information I feel insecure in, which I am neurotic about, etc. Me telling someone that I am NeFi is allowing them more intimate access to my mind than I would normally be willing to say out loud. Such that, when I am doing or saying something that someone doesn't associate as NeFi actions/words, they could have a seriously in depth understanding of me if they would ask themselves something like "Why would an NeFi do that? Or think that? Or like/dislike that?" And then again "Why else?" (Of course, the benefit of these kinds of questions is that it can also lead the asker into considering personal experiences which could be influencing the action/thought/like/dislike, and moving beyond stereotype-thinking.)

[Galen]

I'm not totally sure what you're asking for in this thread. Stories of personal anguish and horror? Reactions to imagery of extreme physical mutilation? Something about porn????

While I don't actively seek out media that emphasizes extreme depictions of violence specifically, if the story is well executed enough then violence certainly won't turn me away from it. Granted I haven't seen very many films or shows with a shitton of gore (psychological bubble yada yada), but Breaking Bad implemented gory stuff in a way to heighten the drama and tension tenfold, so I appreciated how it was used there. 127 Hours as well, although to a much less extreme degree.

I feel like I've already talked about my take on porn on here, but here's a reiteration.

Porn actors are just that: actors. Bad actors. They are paid to put on a show and create an illusion, and most of the time this show is completely transparent and unrealistic. It's impossible for me to get invested in porn where the "stars" are obviously acting in a contrived scene and there's no chemistry between them. I certainly don't think porn is bad, although being a moral nihilist necessitates that no things are bad or good.

[Kim]

I'm not totally sure what you're asking for in this thread. Stories of personal anguish and horror? Reactions to imagery of extreme physical mutilation? Something about porn????

It is mostly a spin-off thread to allow me to address the argument that attitude towards gore and porn (etc.) is type-related. Anything goes.

[Kim]

Porn actors are just that: actors. Bad actors. They are paid to put on a show and create an illusion, and most of the time this show is completely transparent and unrealistic. It's impossible for me to get invested in porn where the "stars" are obviously acting in a contrived scene and there's no chemistry between them. I certainly don't think porn is bad, although being a moral nihilist necessitates that no things are bad or good.

I have never found professional and scripted porn appealing. Now I am wondering if preference for certain types of porn might be type-related.

[Slacker]

I don't mean to fit a stereotype, and I don't think this is anything one should base a typing on and that it is a stereotype, but I can't stand watching anything violent and have to turn my eyes away from violent movies. I did watch Saving Private Ryan and literally sobbed during the first part of it. And I mean "literally" literally. I don't mean "I sobbed and I want to emphasize that." I truly cried hard through it. I don't usually get emotional during movies - even real tearjerkers - but that was outside of my ability to handle.

I don't find porn sexy at all. I guess like Galen said. It's very fake and hard to take seriously at all. And visual representations of someone else having sex don't do anything for me. I don't think I'm really visual in general though so that probably isn't just about porn.

[Saberstorm]

I try to limit my porn consumption. But in general, I like the idea of getting to know the girl in question. This is through fantasy, of course. I like photo sets that are more like portraiture. I generally do not like porn that has actual sex in it.

I have no idea why people like the "slimy" part of porn. I do not get the abusive themes. I do not understand the obsession with blow jobs, anal sex, or giant penises. Interesting erotic portraiture I can understand... the other stuff seems juvenile.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Now I am wondering if preference for certain types of porn might be type-related.

*shrugs* I don't watch porn (GoT aside). I do read smutty manga and some that is outright porn. It tends to get empty and unfulfilling pretty quick, as most of it involves one-shots and a sort of "I like you; let's fuck" mindset. Of course, most people probably don't read or watch porn for the story... But I get way more overall enjoyment out of a good story that has sex in it, and I usually am more satisfied as a reader when there's an established relationship between the characters having sex. Some of those stories are seriously gross, though. Is excess female ejaculation a fetish or something? >_>

To be clear, I'm referring to smut and adult titles, not hentai. Hentai is thoroughly unappealing and repulsive, as I'm not into impossibly-endowed females being violated by human, creature, tentacle, etc. I wouldn't be with a man who reads it; it turns me off that much.

[Zola]

Whatever my type I can't watch violence, it's like I can feel it happening. Can have the same reaction (just a bit less intense) to seeing people prune plants or cut down living trees. It's painful to watch. I also can't watch or read horror, it doesn't matter that I know it's not real, the fear and adrenaline take a long time to leave and is very unpleasant. Used to dread story hour in elementary school because teachers always loved reading stories about werewolves and trolls and vampires and bad people (that were probably very mild in actuality) and I'd try not to hear but bits of it would always slip through and it would mess with my dreams for days (if you already have dreams of people chasing you and wanting to hurt you it probably doesn't help to be fed images of more bad things that want to hurt you =P). I tried to desensitize myself in my late teens and twenties by watching and reading crime shows, mysteries and the like but it didn't work at all so I eventually stopped (and the dreams became less frequent). My issue with porn (apart from issues of trafficking, making sure it is completely volontary and not because of prior abuse, because of not seeing any better options or similar) is that it seems inherently dehumanizing, not seeing the person as a person but as an object, a tool to end, and I don't think it's good perspective on people to seek out.

[SyrupDeGem]

I am much more against violence than sex in film/media etc as long as portrayed in a loving way I think it's completely natural pastime/pleasure and should be encouraged in a kind and loving way. Violence is another thing altogether though, while i appreciate there has long been violence in times of war and invasion... mindless violence has little bearing and i honestly believe we could do without it being splashed all over ... I have never understood this stupid censorship where you can show someone brutally smashing some else's face in as a 12 rated film but to show a naked a breast it has to be rated a 15. Sex is not illegal where as violence is. for good reason imo. I think the set up for censorship is pretty backwards. It is simply what sells, sex and violence stimulate parts of the brain, many people enjoy those parts being stimulated and buy into the false image of that. It's very sad really.

Western societies have come a long way in humanitarian issues, yet we have this industry where the pretense of the very barbarism that we have striven to abolish is encouraged. E.g torture.

I also feel this way about violent sports such as boxing. Martial arts are different though, because there is so much more to them that, they are a way of life and have spiritual connotations.

I have always hated gore as has my mother but my brother (IEE) has never taken issue with it. I remember a film with a monkey that brought a virus into the country that turned people into zombies... it scarred me, but he thought it was hilarious. I am very sensitive to scary films too, I was exposed to american werewolf in London and poltergeist when i was really young (7 or 8) and those has an awful effect and began my nightmares. I really do not watch any films like that but my brother does.

Violence really disturbs me, and though i grasp why people hurt each other on a scientific and societal level my mind just says why would you do that to someone!

I was also exposed to a lot of pornography from a young age, I never really enjoyed it but was fascinated at the same time. I think men in pornography are incredibly aggressive and literally hurt women (in straight porn) intentionally, which is awful and barbaric and incredibly anti me. Lesbian porn is often less so. I remember a film a while back which focused on real sex lesbian porn, women in genuine relationships, sort of documentary style, which was interesting to watch. Still though it does very little for me as i am often wondering about the people themselves, how they got into the industry, weather they are really happy doing it, do people really enjoy those particular noises they make! I understand it in a crude way but i do not identify.

I suppose there may be an inclination of certain types to be averse to these stimuli or movies etc but I do agree it's not solely type related. There are trends yes but it's not exclusive.


Funnily enough though is I will watch films/documentaries where there is human crisis, drought, war, natural disasters etc, I feel far more connected to the emotional turmoil of mass suffering, it stirs something in me. I may cry though, something quite emo about it, I feel a fragment of the worlds pain but it's as if that is important to me. I feel i should be reminded.


Edit: I don't mind some vampire movies.

[mikemex]

They say you only live once but if you read, every book you read is a new life you experience during your own life time. During the years, I've come in contact with all kinds of "disturbing" material. I've watched all kinds of surgery being performed, street fights, war footage, murder in cold blood, snuff movies, zoophilia, etc. And I think it all has enriched my understanding of how the world really works.

In the end, the more you filter what you see, the more you alienate yourself from the world. And with alienation comes the feeling of helplessness.

[Eliza Thomason]

...In the end, the more you filter what you see, the more you alienate yourself from the world. And with alienation comes the feeling of helplessness.

I disagree with this. I think we pollute our minds if we don't filter. Garbage in, garbage out. (Better to keep it clean and running smoothly). I think a discipline of filtering, through ones sensibilities, morality, personal sensitivities or priorities serves to expand the mind. And there are definitely things we want all to be alienated from. I think going filter-less would lead one to a sense of helplessness.

I think you will realize you do in fact filter, when you consider it. Anyway it seems to me that your main point is that you try to keep yourself open to a wide variety of experiences, including through media, to better understand the world..
_____________
[example of my filtering: some of what Ryene said in her post here, I don't know what that is and I don't WANT to know. Never heard of it and want to keep it that way. My SLI and I both have that saying a lot, like when his SEE daughter makes reference to something for shock value, we both on our own have the same words in reaction, "I don't want to know about that..." And that's just how we like it.

[Eliza Thomason]

Whatever my type I can't watch violence, it's like I can feel it happening. Can have the same reaction (just a bit less intense) to seeing people prune plants or cut down living trees. It's painful to watch. I also can't watch or read horror, it doesn't matter that I know it's not real, the fear and adrenaline take a long time to leave and is very unpleasant. Used to dread story hour in elementary school because teachers always loved reading stories about werewolves and trolls and vampires and bad people (that were probably very mild in actuality) and I'd try not to hear but bits of it would always slip through and it would mess with my dreams for days (if you already have dreams of people chasing you and wanting to hurt you it probably doesn't help to be fed images of more bad things that want to hurt you =P)....

I don't have any ideas about your type, but is ISFP one you ever considered? Just because I am thinking of those I know with reactions like yours led me to ISFP. "Feeling trees" is not like anything I have ever done, so its seems fascinating to me. I feel people real strong but not objects. And I remeber DJ saying something in one of his videos about ST (or was it just S) types being able to "feel things" in their mind by looking at them. I thought it was interesting because I don't do that. My SLI maybe can though. I do feel people real strong. Even a stranger down the road walking sometimes I can feel a mood at a glance. So I am wondering it its related to sensing, maybe Sensing related to Fi somehow?? ...Just guessing, not an educated guess either.

[Galen]

I disagree with this. I think we pollute our minds if we don't filter. Garbage in, garbage out. (Better to keep it clean and running smoothly). I think a discipline of filtering, through ones sensibilities, morality, personal sensitivities or priorities serves to expand the mind. And there are definitely things we want all to be alienated from. I think going filter-less would lead one to a sense of helplessness.

Information can only be garbage if you don't know how to understand it. The only knowledge that I can see construed as pollution is the factually incorrect, but you're endorsing active ignorance and denial of things you don't like. By pushing out all the things that make you uncomfortable or force you to challenge your world view, you can't possibly "expand your mind" because you're actively ignoring out all the inconvenient bits that don't fit with your vision of how things "ought" to be. Your world then becomes a self-secluded bubble that cares only for itself and not for the world it's actually living in.

[anndelise]

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil...so we can pretend evil doesn't exist.
I grew up around people who filtered out experiences they didn't want to consider/feel.
This filtering helped them ignore experiences beyond their own.
It helped them ignore what others might be going through.
And that filtering allowed them to allow horrible things happen to innocent people....without feeling guilty about it.

This seems contradictory to the enfp's psychologist-oriented nature, and reporter nature.
Lacking diverse experiences, even vicarious experiences, leaves very little to report on, very limited ability to understand problems and their potential solutions, as well as a very limited base for understanding diverse psychologies.

Sounds like a kind of hell, to me.

[Eliza Thomason]

@Galen and @anndelise, An example of what I would block out is someone describing their sadistic brand of sex, involving, i.e., battering, or any other thing we can mostly all agree is pretty sickening. As well as things I have reason to disagree with others don't. Some things like what gets a pedophile off I don't want to know! I don't want to understand it. Its enough for me to know its wrong.

I want my mind to dwell on things that are good and right and true and beautiful. I only want to open my mind to what is bad and ugly and untrue and harmful if it will help me help someone, including understand them, if that's what they need. Then I only want to know enough to serve that purpose and no more. If I can see no purpose, then I don't want to know about it.

SLI's daughter, for instance, telling us, "Look at that blood on the wall (of her bedroom, which SLI and I are cleaning, sanding, painting while she chats). You know, there is a really kinky story behind that. When [Scumbag Boyfriend] was living here..." Yes, she is trying is trying to shock and provoke, not out of any malice but for the fun of it, but I don't need that, and SLI feels the same, and both SLI and I cut her off at the same time, "I don't want to know about it!" Yeah, what for? What is the good in it? We were both of one mind on that. And probably she knew what her Dads reaction would be, and not knowing mine, was just curious to see what it would be. Now she knows. Same as her Dad.

So we all have different filters. I am too aware some habitually and instantly filter out anything to do with Christian morality so unless I have a compelling reason I don't get on that topic, too aware of the strength of the filters some people have. They will put up their filter wall just as fast as SLI and I put up our "I don't want to hear about it!" above. Their filter might be called "God doesn't care what I do in that situation/that place" or "Who is God there is no God" or the age-old "What is truth?". Jesus said that some have eyes that can't see and ears that can't hear, and He wasn't talking of literal blind and deafness but of spiritual blindness and deafness..

When my married friend was having an affair while still married, I filtered out of my mind what she was actually doing with the guy and tried to see and understand her instead. What drove her to this, what I believe I would never do, but had I walked in her shoes maybe I would have. In order to see her I filtered out the actuality of what she was doing, the immoral part, from my mind.

I tend to do that when people are doing things, living in a way I think is morally wrong. I focus on what I see that is right about it, for example, the love they have for the person. I also realize its morally wrong for myself only because God has given me the grace to see its wrong, or He has given me the grace to not be in their circumstance and face that particular temptation, therefore,I cannot judge another's wrongs, not having the whole story, the one that only God can see, and I can only look at my own wrongs and that only with the help of God.. So I filter from my mind thought of their particular sin and try to just see that person, as God would see them: Beloved of God. God says try to see what is good and right and beautiful. If they are doing something wrong or not beautiful, I filter it from my mind, so I can instead see what God wants me to see: the person, made in His image. If I look at that person the way God wants me to see that person, it is like I can see God.

Another example is suppose someone of a different temperament, a person of passionate temperament, when they get good and mad it comes out like an explosion including some things like name calling and such things said I would never say even when good and mad, being of a different temperament. So I filter out that little explosion experience, even if it was aimed right at me. I tell myself, that person must feel justified saying unspeakable things, because they could not contain their passion [passionate anger, in this case]. If I were to focus on the trespass aspect of it, I could get caught up in negative thinking about them, looking at them in a way God would not look at them. Therefore is not right. So that is another example of how I filter.

So I do not see filtering as limiting, but freeing. We are all different and filter in different ways for differing reasons. Having to do with temperament and also whatever path God has us on at the time (or sidetrack we are on for whatever reason). We are all so different. Look at Anndelise's forgiveness thread. We all forgive in different ways with differing emphasis', according to our unique selves. Its interesting.

Oh and we were talking about two forum members recently and I changed their names when I responded to it because not only to protect their privacy but also to try to filter out in my own mind their errors, because I want to see people for who they are, not their misspoken words and/or mistaken actions.

So this sort of filtering makes me freer to know, to appreciate and to love people for who they are which I believe is Gods will and our highest purpose in life.

When I am closing my mind to some things so that I can open it to higher things, I am opening my mind up as far as I can, not closing it.

IMO, filtering is a way of having a direction in life. Its like a ship with only a sail and no rudder would not be truly free.

[anndelise]

@Galen and @anndelise, An example of what I would block out is someone describing their sadistic brand of sex, involving, i.e., battering, or any other thing we can mostly all agree is pretty sickening. As well as things I have reason to disagree with others don't. Some things like what gets a pedophile off I don't want to know! I don't want to understand it. Its enough for me to know its wrong.

I want my mind to dwell on things that are good and right and true and beautiful. I only want to open my mind to what is bad and ugly and untrue and harmful if it will help me help someone, including understand them, if that's what they need. Then I only want to know enough to serve that purpose and no more. If I can see no purpose, then I don't want to know about it.

SLI's daughter, for instance, telling us, "Look at that blood on the wall (of her bedroom, which SLI and I are cleaning, sanding, painting while she chats). You know, there is a really kinky story behind that. When [Scumbag Boyfriend] was living here..." Yes, she is trying is trying to shock and provoke, not out of any malice but for the fun of it, but I don't need that, and SLI feels the same, and both SLI and I cut her off at the same time, "I don't want to know about it!" Yeah, what for? What is the good in it? We were both of one mind on that. And probably she knew what her Dads reaction would be, and not knowing mine, was just curious to see what it would be. Now she knows. Same as her Dad.

So we all have different filters. I am too aware some habitually and instantly filter out anything to do with Christian morality so unless I have a compelling reason I don't get on that topic, too aware of the strength of the filters some people have. They will put up their filter wall just as fast as SLI and I put up our "I don't want to hear about it!" above. Their filter might be called "God doesn't care what I do in that situation/that place" or "Who is God there is no God" or the age-old "What is truth?". Jesus said that some have eyes that can't see and ears that can't hear, and He wasn't talking of literal blind and deafness but of spiritual blindness and deafness..

When my married friend was having an affair while still married, I filtered out of my mind what she was actually doing with the guy and tried to see and understand her instead. What drove her to this, what I believe I would never do, but had I walked in her shoes maybe I would have. In order to see her I filtered out the actuality of what she was doing, the immoral part, from my mind.

I tend to do that when people are doing things, living in a way I think is morally wrong. I focus on what I see that is right about it, for example, the love they have for the person. I also realize its morally wrong for myself only because God has given me the grace to see its wrong, or He has given me the grace to not be in their circumstance and face that particular temptation, therefore,I cannot judge another's wrongs, not having the whole story, the one that only God can see, and I can only look at my own wrongs and that only with the help of God.. So I filter from my mind thought of their particular sin and try to just see that person, as God would see them: Beloved of God. God says try to see what is good and right and beautiful. If they are doing something wrong or not beautiful, I filter it from my mind, so I can instead see what God wants me to see: the person, made in His image. If I look at that person the way God wants me to see that person, it is like I can see God.

Another example is suppose someone of a different temperament, a person of passionate temperament, when they get good and mad it comes out like an explosion including some things like name calling and such things said I would never say even when good and mad, being of a different temperament. So I filter out that little explosion experience, even if it was aimed right at me. I tell myself, that person must feel justified saying unspeakable things, because they could not contain their passion [passionate anger, in this case]. If I were to focus on the trespass aspect of it, I could get caught up in negative thinking about them, looking at them in a way God would not look at them. Therefore is not right. So that is another example of how I filter.

So I do not see filtering as limiting, but freeing. We are all different and filter in different ways for differing reasons. Having to do with temperament and also whatever path God has us on at the time (or sidetrack we are on for whatever reason). We are all so different. Look at Anndelise's forgiveness thread. We all forgive in different ways with differing emphasis', according to our unique selves. Its interesting.

Oh and we were talking about two forum members recently and I changed their names when I responded to it because not only to protect their privacy but also to try to filter out in my own mind their errors, because I want to see people for who they are, not their misspoken words and/or mistaken actions.

So this sort of filtering makes me freer to know, to appreciate and to love people for who they are which I believe is Gods will and our highest purpose in life.

When I am closing my mind to some things so that I can open it to higher things, I am opening my mind up as far as I can, not closing it.

IMO, filtering is a way of having a direction in life. Its like a ship with only a sail and no rudder would not be truly free.

Wow, you judge a lot.

If someone was talking about their brand of sex, I would be wondering why they were telling Me, and wondering what they had psychologically gotten from that experience. Even when I hear about a story about a pedophile my initial reaction is to place myself in the different roles of those involved so I can get a better sense of the situation. Like the guy and his wife who held three women hostages for his sexual gratification, and his grandaughter from one of them being pregnant with his kid. I am not going to ignore such things. And my first impulse is not intentional, it just happens when I hear about it...i look at the experience from the hostages' povs, the grandaughter's pov, the wife's pov...i mean, what kind of woman could not just allow it...but support it?? And even the guy's pov...even though my brain immediately wants to shut down on that one. Yes, they husband and wife knew it was wrong...that is why they hid them away. But the wife must've been ok with something, or going through her own thing. And my mind wants to know why.

As for your friend, it's not like we are talking about the physical sensations. We are talking about the psychological experience, the problems they would have had to deal with, and how they overcame then. Because some of those problem-solutions can be generalized to be used as a potential solution for a similar problem, regardless of the original "affair" context.

As for the person of a different temperament, if they tell you they are of a specific temperament, but then they act a different way, i want to know why they are acting differently. What set them off? What value got trampled on? If they were directing it at me, I would review my own actions to see what *I* had said/done that might have set them off.

...but also to try to filter out in my own mind their errors, because I want to see people for who they are, not their misspoken words and/or mistaken actions.

If you "filter out" people's behaviors you don't personally approve of, then you are a far far cry from seeing those people for themselves. Instead, filtering that out and focusing on only certain parts of them suggests you trying to alter them somehow, at least in your own mind.

 

But this quote, and the following, of yours does explain a lot about why you request not to be shown proof that counters your views on someone. Which, btw, goes totally against NeFi's hidden agenda "need to know". You seem to have a hidden agenda of "need to believe". Interesting.

So this sort of filtering makes me freer to know, to appreciate and to love people for who they are..

Yes, I can see how filtering out what doesn't fit with what you want to see can feel freeing. I really can.

But please don't delude yourself that you are seeing them for who they are. Because by filtering out their actions , their values, their thoughts and feelings that you don't personally approve of...then you are dismissing so much of who they actually are, including why they did what they did, said what they said, felt what they felt, etc. and when you do that TO a person, you are invalidating them and who they are.

And in my own personal opinion, that much filtering of who people actually are is quite distasteful.

[Kim]

@Eliza Thomason, I am curious as to how you see NeFi and Te hidden agenda manifest in yourself?

[Eliza Thomason]

@Eliza Thomason, I am curious as to how you see NeFi and Te hidden agenda manifest in yourself?

"To Know" is the easiest one for me to say off the top of my head. I like to know why people think the way they think, motivations behind what they do. As far as to knowing Te, for me, that seems to manifest itself as my having a knowledge of a thing, something that is right or true, from my intuition, some connection of ideas that I just know is true, and I just know it, but I cannot communicate it well. I will seek to understand it then in a logical way so that it can be explained. Maybe the Ne is wanting to share ideas, but I don't always do that in a way people can understand ["I just know it" doesn't take me far], so I want more Logic so that I can extrovert, or share it.

Hope that makes sense.

Oh, and my personal theory is that every Hidden agenda leads to the same Hidden Agenda, which is To Love. Only SLI and ILIs are efficient enough to cut to the chase, not wasting time sidetracking. As to the rest of us, if I "know" why people do what they do, I can love them better. "To know is to love." Its true. If another type has wealth HA, perhaps its to inspire himself to be loved, so that he can love, or perhaps so he can love with his wealth, by taking care of others providing well for them, for example. So all roads lead to Rome, as they say...

Ne, I have a continual preoccupation with ideas and connection of ideas and interconnecting new ideas with old; I seem to never get "turd" of that [that one was for @applejacks]. I have always known about myself that I don't often see everything around me without purposefully doing so. I have always been accused of not saying hi to someone when I saw them - welI, I did not see them when I walked right by them! Because where I am is not always where I am. What you see with me sometimes is what you don't get. My body might be there but my mind not; I am off somewhere in my head.* Its why I always liked dance classes, they force me to be out of my head and in the present and to see/feel/hear my actual sensing environment for a whole hour. And also for the same reason I love my SLIs touch how it makes me forget about ideas and such. To stop thinking and just "be", in a lovely way, for a bit...

*[I remember early in my marraige my ESE husband berating me for walking right by a scrap of white paper on our dark brown carpet, several times and not picking it up, accusing me of doing this on purpose out of laziness! I was surprised at his angry accusation, and tried to explain that no, I had never seen the paper. I am thinking when I am walking, no looking... Which is why I love to walk in lovely nature, as it distracts me from my mind and helps me see...]

I like to connect with people in a Ne way, to find their motivations, the connections they make and when people tell me how they are growing in this or that or what they are understanding about themselves its endlessly fascinating to me. That is the "E" part of the "N" as far as I can see..

Fi, well, for one, I get strong feeling reactions to things and I keep my feeling reactions to myself! If I have a strong feeling about a thing you may not know it unless you are very observant and if I see myself being observe i may remove myself while I get alone with it to process it. I see Fe people as more transparent in their emotions, like, if they are mad, they will get good and mad. If they are practiced at self-control, through vulture or upbringing, they may control it well but with effort.

I do and will talk about my feelings, but not so often while they are fresh, but afterward after I have thought them through.

Fi is not first for me, and some Fi-first types seem to do better knowing their own feelings a l lot quicker than I do.

When I read Model A, it is all yes, yes, yes, in every category, particularly some things. But I am telling you off the top of my head.

And now I am curious, how do you see yourself as NeFi and Te hidden agenda??

[Eliza Thomason]

Wow, you judge a lot..

Ah, but isn't that a judgement?

If someone was talking about their brand of sex, I would be wondering why they were telling Me, and wondering what they had psychologically gotten from that experience. Even when I hear about a story about a pedophile my initial reaction is to place myself in the different roles of those involved so I can get a better sense of the situation. Like the guy and his wife who held three women hostages for his sexual gratification, and his grandaughter from one of them being pregnant with his kid. I am not going to ignore such things. And my first impulse is not intentional, it just happens when I hear about it...i look at the experience from the hostages' povs, the grandaughter's pov, the wife's pov...i mean, what kind of woman could not just allow it...but support it?? And even the guy's pov...even though my brain immediately wants to shut down on that one. Yes, they husband and wife knew it was wrong...that is why they hid them away. But the wife must've been ok with something, or going through her own thing. And my mind wants to know why.

I want to really thank you for explaining that. Okay its no secret I think you are SEE. But we share a Hidden Agenda. Your "knowing" someone's experiences here helps you know the person better, and to "love" them (moving into my "all Roads leave to Rome theory above). SEE and EII also share the "To Know" Agenda and being different types, they go about "to know" in differing ways.

As to listening to why a pedophile did what he did, I will only learn if I see application. For example, I always saw it more a father thing to sexually abuse a child. When I was teaching, the school psychologist sent around a thick packet for us to read on women who sexually abuse their own children. I was shocked having never considered the possibility women could too. It was disgusting to read but the fact is, some students in our school experienced this, in every school there would be some. And knowing it was important even if I never know the child in particular. There was a reason to know this and I am glad. Further is to know the truth that women are capable of this, not just men. And there is a reason: because this was done to the mother. And so it goes, generation to generation till some generation through will and probably grace halts it. All good reasons to expose myself to such awful stuff. I do not mind exposure for good reason.

I am sure you can see good reason in it for a lot more cases than me but we all have to filter some things.

But this is the first time I have ever made that "to know" connection with SEEs.

Here is an idea. Maybe the reasons why SEEs can "take" a bigger onslaught of Se sensations than IEE's is because they are more "practised" in taking in all kinds of Se while IEE has spent too much time in her head and so Se experiences have a bigger impact on her than SEE. Intense Se can feel like an onslaught to her. But one accustomed to Se can probably regulate ones own Fi or feeling-reactions to the Se, from experience, much more so than one not accustomed to using Se.

As for your friend, it's not like we are talking about the physical sensations. We are talking about the psychological experience, the problems they would have had to deal with, and how they overcame then. Because some of those problem-solutions can be generalized to be used as a potential solution for a similar problem, regardless of the original "affair" context..

oops I am confused. What are you referring to here?

As for the person of a different temperament, if they tell you they are of a specific temperament, but then they act a different way, i want to know why they are acting differently. What set them off? What value got trampled on? If they were directing it at me, I would review my own actions to see what *I* had said/done that might have set them off..

But I just back away at this kind of thing. For more than one reason. First, I don't do this myself (go "off" on someone) EVER, so I cannot relate or "get" it. Second, perhaps from living with my ex so many years who had anger management issues and it was always my fault when he was out of the blue stinking mad about something, and thus dedicating my whole married life to learn to not do things that made him mad, and to no avail, only to get to the end before I realized the anger came from him, not me, when faced with an onslaught of anger that was supposedly me-induced I just back away and consider it to come from that person, not me. That is my life experience. So I assume the anger comes from the angry person, not me. Also its a kind of boundary. If a person has something to say they have to say it nice for me to hear it.

So that is my response and the other person has to just learn to deal with it if it matters to them. In a marraige situation it would matter, and if I were married and my husband was this way when he got mad he would have to adjust if he wanted to get anywhere with me (particularly after my last experience).

It was either on a radio program or here on this forum some husband was explaining how he deals with his anger. All his young life it was to just rant, express it, get it out and he felt all better. In his family yelling worked just fine, no hard feelings, everyone resolved their issues yelling and there was love and acceptance in his family. Then when he got married, this did not work. His wife could NOT handle yelling, it made her sick and upset. So they came up with a solutions, his new "angry voice" as a very slo-ow MONOTONE when he was mad. That was his new "mad" voice and that is how he would "rant" with his wife so he could get somewhere with it. His kids thinks he sounds like a weird robot but it works for them just fine. Thats love. Monitor and adjust.

Yea, so if my SLI were a yeller that's what he would have to do with me.

If you "filter out" people's behaviors you don't personally approve of, then you are a far far cry from seeing those people for themselves. Instead, filtering that out and focusing on only certain parts of them suggests you trying to alter them somehow, at least in your own mind..

Not really. Practically all the time the details of the behavior I am filtering out don't mater. What matters is the motive behind it, and I think one would assume honorable motives till one is sure they are not. And if I am in a position to, I will tell the person my judgment of their Like, I don't want to know about my friends sex life with her affair guy but I will listen to why she likes him and why she is violating her own values having an affair, and that is what I want to know. I don't want to know about what is her sexual experience with affair-guy. There is a moral judgement there that I abide by, and that is that her sexual experience is none of my business.

Sometimes I even feel that way watching the beginning of a sex scene well done on TV/movie. Sometimes I feel embarrassed, like a peeping Tom, watching someone else's intense emotional/sexual experience.

That's me living according to my view of what I feel is right. I respect others as they do the same, according to them.

this quote, and the following, of yours does explain a lot about why you request not to be shown proof that counters your views on someone. Which, btw, goes totally against NeFi's hidden agenda "need to know". You seem to have a hidden agenda of "need to believe". Interesting.[/spoiler].

No. See? Its about wanting to know DIFFERENT things. One wants to know of experiences including physical experiences. The other wants to know inner thoughts like motivations and how does this fit with your moral view and how did you grow and what did you learn from this experience? There is a whole world of things to know, and we can't possibly make any more than a tiny dent in all there is to know in our little time on earth, so, we have preferences for what we want to know about and other things we filter out so we can focus instead on what we want to know.

Yes, I can see how filtering out what doesn't fit with what you want to see can feel freeing. I really can. .

Yes, because you do it too. We all do.

But please don't delude yourself that you are seeing them for who they are. Because by filtering out their actions , their values, their thoughts and feelings that you don't personally approve of...then you are dismissing so much of who they actually are, including why they did what they did, said what they said, felt what they felt, etc. and when you do that TO a person, you are invalidating them and who they are..

I can assure you I do not filter out peoples thoughts and feelings and values. I really do want to know those things if they want to share them.

And in my own personal opinion, that much filtering of who people actually are is quite distasteful.

Ah, I think you are just rushing to judgment about me here, dear.

[Kim]

And now I am curious, how do you see yourself as NeFi and Te hidden agenda??

I research for a living because I want to know things. When something catches my interest, I want to know everything about it and get obsessed with it until I get tired of it and then I will often (not always) drop it completely. So I can tell you every detail about random topics like Mount Everest sherpas, Yoruba spirituality, life under the German welfare system, the U.S. healthcare system and its effects on people, undocumented immigrants along the U.S. border, transgender rights, Cuban photography, alcoholism and recovery, schizophrenia, combat PTSD, dog rescue, and a bunch of other topics, mostly related to people and their stories in different contexts, because at some point in my life those caught my interest. I like to look at issues from all angles, especially the human experience and including suffering, sadness, and violence. I want to know people and their lives, histories, and thoughts and I like to help them connect the dots if they need help connecting them.

I am an academic because I love to do research and because it allows me to change direction when I get bored. I love to read, listen, and connect. I write articles about contemporary migration movements, literature, film, and art and make connections historically and socioculturally. I love to interact with students and talk to them about their plans, assess their potential, and help them work through all the possibilities.

In a nutshell.

[SyrupDeGem]

I research for a living because I want to know things. When something catches my interest, I want to know everything about it and get obsessed with it until I get tired of it and then I will often (not always) drop it completely. So I can tell you every detail about random topics like Mount Everest sherpas, Yoruba spirituality, life under the German welfare system, the U.S. healthcare system and its effects on people, undocumented immigrants along the U.S. border, transgender rights, Cuban photography, alcoholism and recovery, schizophrenia, combat PTSD, dog rescue, and a bunch of other topics, mostly related to people and their stories in different contexts, because at some point in my life those caught my interest. I like to look at issues from all angles, especially the human experience and including suffering, sadness, and violence. I want to know people and their lives, histories, and thoughts and I like to help them connect the dots if they need help connecting them.

I am an academic because I love to do research and because it allows me to change direction when I get bored. I love to read, listen, and connect. I write articles about contemporary migration movements, literature, film, and art and make connections historically and socioculturally. I love to interact with students and talk to them about their plans, assess their potential, and help them work through all the possibilities.

In a nutshell.

I heart research!

I shine in areas where i have to make connections that others may not necessarily think of. Working cases for children with special educational needs to get them the right help where their parents may not know much about education law etc. I can act as mediator and caseworker and even represent them at tribunal if required. The way i work with this is to look into all the possibilities and present them to both the parents (first and foremost the parents) and to the local authorities and get the ball rolling. I find most schools are not fully aware of their responsibilities to their children and so often let the children down believing (wrongly) that they should not be intefering or that they could get into trouble for actioning a program out of their jurisdiction.

Another area of difficulty of it is that the system itself is so confusing that most parents get lost inside it, anyway i digress.

Yah research is brilliant fun.

[anndelise]

First, I owe @Galen an apology for including him in my previous post without his consent, while presuming to talk for him as well. You are further included in this one as I attempt to explain what I had meant in the part I had included you in. Feel free to ignore the rest of this post. I had only notified you for this paragraph.


@Eliza Thomason,
I will try to be less general and more specific for you in this post.

it's not like we are talking about the physical sensations. We are talking about the psychological experience, the problems they would have had to deal with, and how they overcame then. Because some of those problem-solutions can be generalized to be used as a potential solution for a similar problem, regardless of the original "affair" context..

oops I am confused. What are you referring to here?

1) I included "affair" so you could make the connection to your paragraph about your friend's affair.
As a reminder:

When my married friend was having an affair while still married,...

2) You wrote a post to Galen and I, hence the "we".

As a reminder, Galen wrote

Information can only be garbage if you don't know how to understand it. The only knowledge that I can see construed as pollution is the factually incorrect, but you're endorsing active ignorance and denial of things you don't like. By pushing out all the things that make you uncomfortable or force you to challenge your world view, you can't possibly "expand your mind" because you're actively ignoring out all the inconvenient bits that don't fit with your vision of how things "ought" to be. Your world then becomes a self-secluded bubble that cares only for itself and not for the world it's actually living in.

3) note that not once did he reference physical sensations.

As a reminder, I had written:

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil...so we can pretend evil doesn't exist.
I grew up around people who filtered out experiences they didn't want to consider/feel.
This filtering helped them ignore experiences beyond their own.
It helped them ignore what others might be going through.
And that filtering allowed them to allow horrible things happen to innocent people....without feeling guilty about it.

This seems contradictory to the enfp's psychologist-oriented nature, and reporter nature.
Lacking diverse experiences, even vicarious experiences, leaves very little to report on, very limited ability to understand problems and their potential solutions, as well as a very limited base for understanding diverse psychologies.

Sounds like a kind of hell, to me.

4) note that not once did I reference physical sensations.

As a reminder, you wrote:

An example of what I would block out is someone describing their sadistic brand of sex, involving, i.e., battering,

SLI's daughter, for instance, telling us, "Look at that blood on the wall (of her bedroom, which SLI and I are cleaning, sanding, painting while she chats). You know, there is a really kinky story behind that. When [Scumbag Boyfriend] was living here..."

When my married friend was having an affair while still married, I filtered out of my mind what she was actually doing with the guy and tried to see and understand her instead. What drove her to this, what I believe I would never do, but had I walked in her shoes maybe I would have. In order to see her I filtered out the actuality of what she was doing, the immoral part, from my mind.

5) note that these could easily be interpreted as referring to the physical sensations and/or the actual physical acts
. . . a) "sadistic brand of sex"
. . . b) "there's a really kinky story behind it. When [] was living here..."
. . . c) "what she was actually doing with the guy"
. . . d) "what she was actually doing, the immoral part"

So I wrote:

it's not like we are talking about the physical sensations. We are talking about the psychological experience, the problems they would have had to deal with, and how they overcame then. Because some of those problem-solutions can be generalized to be used as a potential solution for a similar problem, regardless of the original "affair" context..

6) note that I specified that "we", Galen and I, were not talking about the filtering of physical sensations.
7) note that I then gave a general picture of what "we", Galen and I, were talking about.
. . . a) psychological experiences of others, (which implicitely includes what event someone went through, why someone did what they did, what they went through psychologically and emotionally as they did it, etc.)
. . . b) the problems the person faced in a given context
. . . c) how the person overcame those problems (implicitely including their personal attitudes, their personal values, their personal struggles, their emotional struggles; as well as the more Te part of what they tried, what worked for them, and what didn't)
8) note that in this case I was using your friend's affair as an example, in the hopes that you would understand that while you were filtering out what you considered her immoralities, (which suggests also filtering out her immoral actions such as meeting the guy, lying to her husband, emotional turmoil over her "immoral actions", etc), Galen and I would not.
9) note that the last sentence of this quote referred to generalizing what was gathered from #7, so that that information could be referred to if needed another time
10) note that I then suggested that that generalized info could be used beyond the context of "affair", (implicitely suggesting that this info adds to possible options in some other area of life...filling our database from which our Ne is drawn from)

I am not going to break my entire post down for you.
I chose this particular part because I wanted to make it clear that "we" were not referring to physical sensations.

Which makes a major portion of your responding post nonsensical.
Particularly your attempt to suggest that yours and my "need to know" are different because one of us wants to include physical experiences. As a reminder:

No. See? Its about wanting to know DIFFERENT things. One wants to know of experiences including physical experiences.

Since I had specifically stated that we were not referring to physical sensations, you surely could not have been referring to either of us.

The other wants to know inner thoughts like motivations and how does this fit with your moral view and how did you grow and what did you learn from this experience?

Since this is along the lines of what I was referring to in #3, 4, and 6-10, then is it safe to assume you were including Galen and I in this category?

----

 

There were some interesting tidbits from your post, however.

I will only learn if I see application.

(Suggests you might need an intended purpose first before you seek to learn.)

I do not mind exposure for good reason.

(Suggests you might need more reason than simple desire to build Ne database.)

I was shocked having never considered the possibility women could too.

(Why would 4dNe be shocked by the possibility that abuse isn't gender specific???)

Also its a kind of boundary. If a person has something to say they have to say it nice for me to hear it.

(Suggests you might want a person to suppress their own feelings and to maintain a good environment for you, else you won't consider the content of their words. ?Fe>Te?)

[Eliza Thomason]

@anndelise, when you and I communicate, our posts in reply to each other get longer and longer and longer and longer. I can write a pretty long post! But you trump me. You definitely have fortitude and tenacity. What happens every time is eventually I get completely overwhelmed and bail. Once again, I am overwhelmed. Maybe you are trying to present a more T-style fact sheet, and generally, I get easily overwhelmed with a wall of this kind of thing. I can take on a shorter post of it, but when the "clarifying what you clarified re: what I clarified" gets too long, I get mind freeze. Kind of have that now.

Its not just you, sometimes when my SLI is explaining something I get it too...

P.S. Have you thought about what color you want @hkkmr to put your name? Because I can help you with that if you want.

[mikemex]

@Eliza Thomason:

It's not my personal preference to not filter much what I perceive, it's simply a consequence of being irrational. If you observe carefully, those who identify with what I say are also irrationals themselves. That you don't identify with that is a good proof that you're rational because it's a characteristic of being rational to apply filtering to perceptions. Rationals always judge and only sometimes perceive; that's why you have endless discussions with @anndelise. She listens to you but you don't listen to her. Sounds like me talking to my EIE mom.

[anndelise]

@anndelise, when you and I communicate, our posts in reply to each other get longer and longer and longer and longer. I can write a pretty long post! But you trump me. You definitely have fortitude and tenacity. What happens every time is eventually I get completely overwhelmed and bail. Once again, I am overwhelmed. Maybe you are trying to present a more T-style fact sheet, and generally, I get easily overwhelmed with a wall of this kind of thing. I can take on a shorter post of it, but when the "clarifying what you clarified re: what I clarified" gets too long, I get mind freeze. Kind of have that now.

Its not just you, sometimes when my SLI is explaining something I get it too...

P.S. Have you thought about what color you want @hkkmr to put your name? Because I can help you with that if you want.

It is not my fault you are incapable of connecting the dots.
Even when the dots are numbered for you.
Even when the proof is provided for each dot.

If you are incapable of basic reading comprehension, try an Adult English course.

[Galen]

First, I owe @Galen an apology for including him in my previous post without his consent, while presuming to talk for him as well. You are further included in this one as I attempt to explain what I had meant in the part I had included you in. Feel free to ignore the rest of this post. I had only notified you for this paragraph.

Not a problem. You're speaking for me better than I usually speak for myself, lol

[nigh]

1. Exposing oneself to a possibly traumatising experience itself is a neutral event.

2. Trying to never exposing oneself, holding onto too many unnecessary strict filters against the world only makes you extremely fragile to what life may throw at you at any time, therefore gives you a huge disadvantage.

3. Pointlessly torturing oneself with an actually traumatising experience may also be unwise.

4. Spartacus was a fairly fun show to watch. I loved the blood-boiling sentiments that flowed through the theme.

5. And

I have really come to appreciate the combination of sociotype and enneagram because it accounts for so many differences you might observe in people of the same type.

So have I

[Eliza Thomason]

It is not my fault you are incapable of connecting the dots.
Even when the dots are numbered for you.
Even when the proof is provided for each dot.

If you are incapable of basic reading comprehension, try an Adult English course.

Why so unkind?

[SyrupDeGem]

@Geminatronix One of the first things my Austrian roomie noticed as we watched a lot of TV was the media disparity between Europeans and violence and Americans and sex.

Im too lazy to change my horrible sentence structure =/

Ah that is interesting. Why is it so though? Outdated Christian biblical values perhaps? 'It's ok to stone sinners/baddies but not to frollick before marriage' Iit is interesting how different cultures develop their own set of values from the same sources through interpretation. Tracing them back to their origin is super interesting too. Take the non eating of pork for example, thought by so many to be because pigs are dirty animals who eat their own feces. Ofc they are not dirty at all and eat their own feces less than rabbits and incidentally less than most other animals (many animals do this in the wild, pigs do also, but less so), yet wabbits are fine to eat religiously. It's not only Judaism and Islam either some sects of Christianity too, texts referencing non eating of swine in the Bible Torah and Q'ran. Yet there is no fundamental reasoning for this that we can clearly decipher, ultimately it is left up to 'God's' will and something that must be adhered to without question. Thinking about this I imagine that there are many possibilities as to why this could have happened. It's possible that there was an epidemic of swine flu or something similar that stemmed from pigs and transferred to humans. Or that (I think i saw reference to this) the meat was routinely cooked poorly and many cases of food poisoning were reported, as anything inside the body used to be considered to do with God (and medicine was practiced this way) it's possible people thought they were being punished for eating the meat of this animal. Also it could be that because of the pigs physical features it is a very messy eater and thought to be 'disgusting' to look at.

Sorry, tangent

[anndelise]

Why so unkind?

Because you give no indication of even trying.
Because you seem to filter out anything that does not match/support your image of me/others.

In this case,
All you had to do was go number by number,
Point by point,
Read what I said,
And compare what I said to the proof I provided for you.

And you couldn't/wouldn't even do that.

Because you feel free to wax on about irrelevant stuff in your own posts,
Which everyone else must wade through,
But when I try narrowing the points down for you,
All points building off each other,
You still cannot/willnot comprehend even one simple point.

[anndelise]

@Jadae and @Geminatronix
My brother has talked of this pig farmer thing to me a few times. I guess it was a bit in his research which he found interesting. He describes it something like:
People who held forests were considered rich, deer and other game available to them.
People who held fields for grazing cattle needed a lot of property for healthy cattle.
People who had access to less desirable property, couldn't raise cattle on it but could raise sheep.
And people who were stuck on the outskirts, on lands that cattle and sheep could not survive, and prevented from hunting game in the forests, were the poorest of the poor, and raised hogs.

So, the basic idea is that the unclean pig thing was based off a long traditional caste system.

[SyrupDeGem]

@Jadae and @Geminatronix
My brother has talked of this pig farmer thing to me a few times. I guess it was a bit in his research which he found interesting. He describes it something like:
People who held forests were considered rich, deer and other game available to them.
People who held fields for grazing cattle needed a lot of property for healthy cattle.
People who had access to less desirable property, couldn't raise cattle on it but could raise sheep.
And people who were stuck on the outskirts, on lands that cattle and sheep could not survive, and prevented from hunting game in the forests, were the poorest of the poor, and raised hogs.

So, the basic idea is that the unclean pig thing was based off a long traditional caste system.

It's interesting, it does not explain why it was outlawed though, why it was written into religious text that it is a sin to eat it, surely most early religious folk were bare bones poor. Any idea how it came into the religious sphere? I have heard that as they were running around when they were wild (boar prob more so than the idea we generally hold of as pigs) they were considered very undesirable. Odd though, those clever little (haha, some are huge!) things can sniff out delicacies that are astronomical in price.

[anndelise]

I'll ask him later this morning.

[anndelise]

Regarding pigs:
This has some quotes and comments near the body that have links to other possible reasons why.
http://santitadwiputri.wordpress.com...dered-unclean/

[mu4]

When I think Spartacus I think Kubrick and Kirk Douglas.

I think Delta NF's try to rationalize watching or not watching what they might consider taboo content.

Just bask in the glow of taboo you silly people.

Disclaimer: This post in no way endorses illegal or objectionable content, it also in no way endorse deviant behavior.

[Eliza Thomason]

Because you give no indication of even trying.

Now that's not reasonable. I have responded to many posts on this. Evidence is here. And I try even though its none too easy for me, as we think so differently and you are so often on personal attack against me and/or are none too charitable towards me (evidence is here for that too!).

Because you seem to filter out anything that does not match/support your image of me/others.

That's how you see it. Not how I see it.

In this case,
All you had to do was go number by number,
Point by point,
Read what I said,
And compare what I said to the proof I provided for you.

And you couldn't/wouldn't even do that.

Too many numbers and too many points! These queries do not merit yes/no answers, but require much explanation. Its always the same, I give "explaining" my best shot - in many words, too - and then you don't get it. And I am not accusing you of being dense, as you accuse me. I think its simply that our minds are not meeting. We just think different.

Maybe you could weed through your list of complaints and objections about me, and basically prioritize them down to the one or two worst things about me. Then it would not be so daunting to respond to.

Because you feel free to wax on about irrelevant stuff in your own posts,

Irrelevant to you. That's okay.

Which everyone else must wade through,
But when I try narrowing the points down for you,
All points building off each other,
You still cannot/willnot comprehend even one simple point.

Well I addressed that above, but, do ask yourself this: Do you think you have given me any indication that you comprehend any of my points?

P.S. I see your patience meter is running low... maybe that's due to our shared "Emotivist" viewpoint - "a negative conversation is a wasted one". And this has been pretty negative. Maybe we could clean it up, or just put it away.

[anndelise]

@Eliza Thomason

Even now you show a preference to not resolve the misunderstandings or miscommunications of that one post.
It seems much easier for you to filter out proof of your errors,
and direct the conversation AWAY FROM your errors,
than it is to consider where/how you erred.
However, you can easily prove me wrong in my assessment of you.
If you are truly interested in clearing up misunderstandings and miscommunications,
then lets walk through that one post together, point by point, one point at a time.

it's not like we are talking about the physical sensations. We are talking about the psychological experience, the problems they would have had to deal with, and how they overcame then. Because some of those problem-solutions can be generalized to be used as a potential solution for a similar problem, regardless of the original "affair" context..

oops I am confused. What are you referring to here?

1) I included "affair" so you could make the connection to your paragraph about your friend's affair.
As a reminder:

When my married friend was having an affair while still married,...

You said you were confused by that quoted piece.
You asked what I was referring to there.

Point one answers part of your question.

In the quoted piece I had said "affair".
In your post I was responding to, you had described a friend having an affair.
"Affair"....affair.

Do you grasp that particular connection now?
Do you understand point 1 now?

[Eliza Thomason]

@Eliza Thomason

Even now you show a preference to not resolve the misunderstandings or miscommunications of that one post.
It seems much easier for you to filter out proof of your errors,
and direct the conversation AWAY FROM your errors,
than it is to consider where/how you erred.
However, you can easily prove me wrong in my assessment of you.
If you are truly interested in clearing up misunderstandings and miscommunications,
then lets walk through that one post together, point by point, one point at a time.



You said you were confused by that quoted piece.
You asked what I was referring to there.

Point one answers part of your question.

In the quoted piece I had said "affair".
In your post I was responding to, you had described a friend having an affair.
"Affair"....affair.

Do you grasp that particular connection now?
Do you understand point 1 now?

Okay, yes, I got confused and forgot my own example of my friend's affair. Thanks for setting me straight. Referrring to that, you said:

" it's not like we are talking about the physical sensations. We are talking about the psychological experience, the problems they would have had to deal with, and how they overcame then. Because some of those problem-solutions can be generalized to be used as a potential solution for a similar problem, regardless of the original "affair" context.." I think its the last part of this I bolded that got me even more confused. I am not sure if its just a comment you made here, or a part of a particular point you want me to see.

Yes, of course, the sex part of their affair was not just physical sensations. And her telling me how he made her feel helped me understand her inner needs that predisposed her to be vulnerable to this.

Not sure if I answered your question properly. Feel free to clarify if I did not.

[anndelise]

Okay, yes, I got confused and forgot my own example of my friend's affair. Thanks for setting me straight. Referrring to that, you said:

" it's not like we are talking about the physical sensations. We are talking about the psychological experience, the problems they would have had to deal with, and how they overcame then. Because some of those problem-solutions can be generalized to be used as a potential solution for a similar problem, regardless of the original "affair" context.." I think its the last part of this I bolded that got me even more confused. I am not sure if its just a comment you made here, or a part of a particular point you want me to see.

Later points cover that.
But if you cannot understand what that paragraph was building off of,
then you wouldn't be able to understand what it's saying.
And if I can't find the specific points which confused you,
Then I cannot clarify them for you.

Now, to resume:

The paragraph in question is:

it's not like we are talking about the physical sensations. We are talking about the psychological experience, the problems they would have had to deal with, and how they overcame then. Because some of those problem-solutions can be generalized to be used as a potential solution for a similar problem, regardless of the original "affair" context..

oops I am confused. What are you referring to here?

2) You wrote a post to Galen and I, hence the "we".

Point 2 was just one of the answers to your "oops I am confused. What are you referring to here?"


That one paragraph referrenced quite a few things
The "affair" reference was only one reference.
The "we" reference was another one.
There are more references, but at that moment I could not be sure what you understood
and what you didn't.
So that point-post was covering the possible confusions for you.

There are more references,
but I'm trying to keep things simple and clear here.


Is point 2 a point of confusion for you?
Do you understand who "we" referred to?

(Don't worry, things will get more interesting soon.)