Me

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Blaze]

nothing to do with diana's type but....

@expat and joy: i do agree with gilly though that it often seems that you try to recruit people to gamma.

i think we all see what we want to see in others a la quadra values and if we have a decent relation with someone we want to see them in our own quadra, at least subconsciously, but there seems to be a lot of gamma recruitment going on at the forum these days.

[Expat]

@expat and joy: i do agree with gilly though that it often seems that you try to recruit people to gamma.

Rubbish.

[Joy]

The cause and effect relationships are being confused here. I don't think people are certain types because I get along with them well. It's more like... I get along with them well because they're certain types.

Considering the fact that it makes up 25% of the socion I'd say it's rather unavoidable. And the only people I've "tried to recruit" to Gamma are Peter and Diana, and it's not because I wanted them to be in the same quadra that I'm in. I've suggested types for a lot of people. Some are in Gamma, some are not.

And as far as trying to kick people out of Gamma... yeah, I've told people that didn't particularly care for me that they're not Gamma, but I'm pretty sure I was right about them. Most of them are now considered by the general consensus to be other quadras, if I'm not mistaken.

[Exodus]

@thehotelambush: two examples:

None of that is based on anything at all but what you say you see or don't see. What a load of crap.

I explained very clearly to you why you're an idiot, sorry you didn't understand, thus showing more proof of that.

Surely I don't need to tell you that that's a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[Expat]

Surely I don't need to tell you that that's a self-fulfilling prophesy.

You're wrong.

[Exodus]

Surely I don't need to tell you that that's a self-fulfilling prophesy.

You're wrong.

:wink: ok.

[Gilly]

FWIW, after all this, I don't think Diana and I can be anything but conflictors. I don't think we were on the same page at any point during this discussion with regards to what was ACTUALLY going on in the other's head. I was under the impression that I was "helping;" apparently, I was being challenged (for no reason at all, as far as I see) on an opinion that I held (and had no desire to force on anyone else). Not sure why all of this was necessary, but yes, I will now agree that Diana is ESI.

As for the remark questioning Joy and Expat's objectivity...it's not rubbish. Well, maybe to you, but I hope you can see how it might appear to be the case.

[Expat]

As for the remark questioning Joy and Expat's objectivity...it's not rubbish. Well, maybe to you, but I hope you can see how it might appear to be the case.

1) It is indeed rubbish
2) what are the other examples of "gamma recruiting" then?

[Gilly]

Do there have to be other examples? I'm sorry, I can't account for every reason that gave me that general impression, but it was my impression, so I said it.

[Blaze]

nothing to do with diana's type but....

@expat and joy: i do agree with gilly though that it often seems that you try to recruit people to gamma.

i think we all see what we want to see in others a la quadra values and if we have a decent relation with someone we want to see them in our own quadra, at least subconsciously, but there seems to be a lot of gamma recruitment going on at the forum these days.

That's bullshit. What is this argument really, a distraction technique?

no this isn't an argument, just a perception. an observation if you will. :wink:

[Blaze]

nothing to do with diana's type but....

@expat and joy: i do agree with gilly though that it often seems that you try to recruit people to gamma.

i think we all see what we want to see in others a la quadra values and if we have a decent relation with someone we want to see them in our own quadra, at least subconsciously, but there seems to be a lot of gamma recruitment going on at the forum these days.

That's bullshit. What is this argument really, a distraction technique?

no this isn't an argument, just a perception. an observation if you will. :wink:

Aside from the observation seeming to me to be generally not actually a reflection of reality (how many people can you name aside from Diana that Joy and/or Expat have tried to "recruit" to Gamma?), it says absolutely nothing about Diana's type.

I have absolutely no relationship with Diana, and I think she fits perfectly well into Gamma.

ishy i'm not going to get into an evidence thing with you here...it's just a perception, take it or leave it. it's really not a big deal.

[Expat]

ishy i'm not going to get into an evidence thing with you here...it's just a perception, take it or leave it. it's really not a big deal.

Well since you said "often", I was hoping you'd have at least another example -- and personally I do see it as a big deal, since it implies that I have a nefarious motive when typing anyone as Gamma, as if it was a lie.

[Shazaam]

The cause and effect relationships are being confused here. I don't think people are certain types because I get along with them well. It's more like... I get along with them well because they're certain types.

That's a good point. I also agree with something Heath said awhile back about how if you really seem distant with a person they're probably just not from your quadra and to not over-think things too much.

[Blaze]

ishy i'm not going to get into an evidence thing with you here...it's just a perception, take it or leave it. it's really not a big deal.

Well since you said "often", I was hoping you'd have at least another example -- and personally I do see it as a big deal, since it implies that I have a nefarious motive when typing anyone as Gamma, as if it was a lie.

this is just a disagreement over facts vs perceptions/impressions. there's no reconciliation of this. i'm not going to go digging through all of your and joy's posts for this, i don't have time.

but there is a fact here to satisfy your Te: it is a fact that Gilly and I have this perception. the "truth" or "factuality" of perceptions and impressions is irrelevant. in other words, it's just feedback, take it or leave it.

:wink:

ps. expat/joy: i never said anything about your motives. not one word. and if even if i did contemplate your motives, which i haven't really, i would not assign nefarious meanings to them.

[discojoe]

ishy i'm not going to get into an evidence thing with you here...it's just a perception, take it or leave it. it's really not a big deal.

Well since you said "often", I was hoping you'd have at least another example -- and personally I do see it as a big deal, since it implies that I have a nefarious motive when typing anyone as Gamma, as if it was a lie.

this is just a disagreement over facts vs perceptions/impressions. there's no reconciliation of this. i'm not going to go digging through all of your and joy's posts for this, i don't have time.

but there is a fact here to satisfy your Te: it is a fact that Gilly and I have this perception. the "truth" or "factuality" of perceptions and impressions is irrelevant. in other words, it's just feedback, take it or leave it.

:wink:

No, that's bullshit. Sharing "perceptions" in this context is the cheap tactic of employing arguments you don't have to defend with logic or facts.

I would be like me saying that my perception of you is "a whore" even though I've never seen you have sex for money, and it's just a perception with no possible reconciliation. There would be no reason for me to share that unless I was trying to spread slander. Doctor it up however you want, but that's what it is, slander.

[Blaze]

how is saying that expat and joy are recruiting for gamma slander? how is that slanderous? i'm not saying anything bad about them.

from dictionary.com:

slan·der /ˈslændər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[slan-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
–verb (used with object) 4. to utter slander against; defame.
–verb (used without object) 5. to utter or circulate slander.

what i said is nowhere near the same as calling someone a whore DJ.

[Expat]

how is saying that expat and joy are recruiting for gamma slander? how is that slanderous? i'm not saying anything bad about them.

Interesting that you say that, because in my opinion, you are I don't doubt that that's not your intention. I may get typings wrong (and I do), but when you say that we are "recruiting" people for Gamma, you are challenging our objectivity - especially because it's something that's impossible to logically counter-argue. It's destructive. If you say that I am mistaken about Diana's type, ok, we can argue about that. If you say that I am recruiting her, you are saying, "don't take his views on Diana's type seriously, he just wants to have her in Gamma".

[Blaze]

how is saying that expat and joy are recruiting for gamma slander? how is that slanderous? i'm not saying anything bad about them.

Interesting that you say that, because in my opinion, you are I don't doubt that that's not your intention. I may get typings wrong (and I do), but when you say that we are "recruiting" people for Gamma, you are challenging our objectivity - especially because it's something that's impossible to logically counter-argue. It's destructive. If you say that I am mistaken about Diana's type, ok, we can argue about that. If you say that I am recruiting her, you are saying, "don't take his views on Diana's type seriously, he just wants to have her in Gamma".

well i guess i could see with your Te and all that you would perceive this as slanderous, since you feel like it's an insult to your fact finding abilities. but it's not meant that way.

perhaps the feedback is more along the lines of your tag team approach with Joy. it could seem a little dominating.

and as i've said in other threads, there are 7 other information elements. it's important to include all kinds of information, not just scientific facts.

[Expat]

well i guess i could see with your Te and all that you would perceive this as slanderous, since you feel like it's an insult to your fact finding abilities. but it's not meant that way.

No, it's not that at all -- we're talking past each other. What is slanderous is not to say that my Te may be flawed in terms of abilities; it's the implication that my motivations (recruiting Gammas) would nullify the validity of my Te.

[discojoe]

slan·der /ˈslændər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[slan-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
–verb (used with object) 4. to utter slander against; defame.
–verb (used without object) 5. to utter or circulate slander.

What you said applies to 2.

what i said is nowhere near the same as calling someone a whore DJ.

hy·per·bo·le
–noun Rhetoric.
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

True, calling you a whore (which I didn't ) is worse than what you said. However, your comment about perceived "recruitment" on Expat's part implied that his motives called into question his reasoning. This is a defamatory statement (whether you intended it to be so or not is irrelevant) that slanders Expat's character.

[Blaze]

well i guess i could see with your Te and all that you would perceive this as slanderous, since you feel like it's an insult to your fact finding abilities. but it's not meant that way.

No, it's not that at all -- we're talking past each other. What is slanderous is not to say that my Te may be flawed in terms of abilities; it's the implication that my motivations (recruiting Gammas) would nullify the validity of my Te.

nothing in what i wrote is slanderous.

you are adding the implication about your motivations, not me. you're reading into this too much. anything about your motivation is not for me to say . . . and definitely would not be a verfiable fact either.

but since i've rephrased my feedback, all of this should be a moot point.

[discojoe]

Someone's broke.

[Blaze]

Someone's broke.

yeah, aint no Ti in gamma for sure! hahahaha and someone's Fi has gone overboard!

[discojoe]

Someone's broke.

yeah, aint no Ti in gamma for sure! hahahaha and someone's Fi has gone overboard!

Case in point.

[Blaze]

Someone's broke.

yeah, aint no Ti in gamma for sure! hahahaha and someone's Fi has gone overboard!

Case in point.

i didn't see your post about hyperbole til later. hahaha but this is really diana's thread...if you want to go on discussing the differences in our points of view, then start another thread. if you start one i'll post there, but honestly i don't really see the point....

[Ms. Kensington]

i was going to say a while ago that Ne people have intuitions, and that for someone to call them baseless or worthless is not very fair. I suppose people do this with Niisms as well. Maybe these are not evidences in the sense that a person of gamma would want.

Personally I think it is offensive on both sides to see someone tell others what their motives or intentions are if they are telling you in seeming honesty what they are themselves.

Isha made it clear to me why gammas take offense to the things they do, thanks isha.

[Expat]

you are adding the implication about your motivations, not me. you're reading into this too much. anything about your motivation is not for me to say . . . and definitely would not be a verfiable fact either.

but since i've rephrased my feedback, all of this should be a moot point.

I'm arguing further just to clarify the issue The context was that you basically put into question Joy's and my typing of Diana as ISFj, adding "there has been some Gamma recruiting". I can't read it in any other way but that our primary motivation was not finding Diana's correct type, but "recruiting Gamma" which necessarily means that Diana's real type being ISFj was of secondary importance. The two can't be reconciled. If you did not imply motivation, then the remark on our being "recruiting Gammas" makes no sense at all.

I honestly could not read that in any other way.

[Blaze]

expat: I REPHRASED MY FEEDBACK. GO READ IT.

@ishy: perception is everything. the "facts" hardly ever win in a political arena. and all human arenas are political, unfortunately.

[Gilly]

That's an awefully black and white statement for you, Peter. Could she not be suggesting that you have a bias that is impeding a legitimate search for Diana's type? That was my previous stance, anyways. It's perfectly reasonable, not to mention understandable, to want people you like in your quadra.

[Expat]

That's an awefully black and white statement for you, Peter. Could she not be suggesting that you have a bias that is impeding a legitimate search for Diana's type? That was my previous stance, anyways. It's perfectly reasonable, not to mention understandable, to want people you like in your quadra.

Do you mean me? Well ok, I took issue with the term "recruiting" but I have seen what diamond8 said (I just mentioned it again to explain my own stance to you).

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

Are you suggesting that ISFj is not a legitimate type for me?

I don't think that's what he's suggesting, he's suggesting that diamond8 pointed out in a non-malicious way that perhaps Joy and I weren't being objective because we wanted you in Gamma. I do dislike the suggestion of non-objectivity and I find it objectionable, but it seems that it's one of these Alpha-Gamma things where we see an offense were they intended none.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

How can that NOT be offensive? And how can it be non-objective if it's true? If an apple is red, and you like red apples, are you then biased for suggesting that a red apple is red?

I also find it offensive, but what I find interesting is that Gilly suggested, in a apparently conciliatory way,

Could she not be suggesting that you have a bias that is impeding a legitimate search for Diana's type?

not even realizing that the suggestion that I have a "bias" is equally offensive, since it undermines my credibility. I can only assume that they don't care about suggestions that they have a bias, because they don't value .

@Gilly: do you realize what I mean? That I find the accusation of having a "bias" offensive?

[Gilly]

Ok, I realize that you find it offensive, but you can't pretend that, objectively, it's an entirely unreasonable suspicion...I mean, come on, nobody is absolutely free of bias; you'd have to be pretty arrogant to suggest that you're the exception. Sure, the facts are facts, but the facts are "skewable," and unless you're claiming to be entirely bias-free, you have to admit that you might be at least slightly prone to some skewing

And I don't think ignoring what you say has anything to do with not valuing ...

[Expat]

Ok, I realize that you find it offensive, but you can't pretend that, objectively, it's an entirely unreasonable suspicion...I mean, come on, nobody is absolutely free of bias; you'd have to be pretty arrogant to suggest that you're the exception. Sure, the facts are facts, but the facts are "skewable," and unless you're claiming to be entirely bias-free, you have to admit that you might be at least slightly prone to some skewing

Biases are irrelevant to a discussion and they can only be suspicions. In discussing Diana's type (or anything else), it is possible to stick to facts as presented, if the facts are "biased", that can be clear in itself. When you say "I won't listen to what you say because you are biased", you are making any objective discussion impossible since you're basically ignoring the evidence I am presenting without evaluating it in its own merits.

And I don't think ignoring what you say has anything to do with not valuing ...

Finding that very offensive apparently does have to do with that, based on the reactions on this thread.

Don't you realize we're back to the discussion we had over PM? Basically pooh-poohing what someone said without discussing it properly, and thinking nothing of it? "Don't take seriously what they said, they're biased"?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

I'm sorry, there's nothing I can say that I haven't already said. I thought I made it pretty clear that what I said was not in any way questioning anyone's credibility any more than it is my own, but if you're unwilling to accept that, then I've run out of words. I refuse to dig myself any deeper of a hole than I already have.