Why do the people here dislike me just because I try to be innovative?

[Hitta]

???

[cracka]

Your attitude about it. I don't know, pretend to know, or will ever even try to know socionics... but your attitude here pretty much says, you're all stupid, my way is correct so listen to me. Telling an entire forum based on one system that their system is just wrong and they're all stupid is probably the easiest way for people to not like you. Which I think you've definitely done as far as I can tell.

[Hitta]

Your attitude about it. I don't know, pretend to know, or will ever even try to know socionics... but your attitude here pretty much says, you're all stupid, my way is correct so listen to me. Telling an entire forum based on one system that their system is just wrong and they're all stupid is probably the easiest way for people to not like you. Which I think you've definitely done as far as I can tell.

Well if you ever took a sociology class you'd know that ever idea always has a counter idea. I'm looking for my counter idea, but for some reason the people here don't want to spurt it out. They've done nothing but prove my idea even further(though degrading my the viewpoints of myself on this forum). The people here that have disagreed with my theories(whether they are right or wrong) have done nothing but follow the trends that I have predicted with my theories. I say that Gammas tend to value things that do not change over time, that they prefer normalcy. I believe this forum to be majorily Gamma(especially my disagreers, who usually self type themselves as Gamma). So you tell me, what was a supposed to listen to. Am I suppose to disregard my theory because someone disagrees with it?

[Ezra]

I think it's because a lot of people have a major problem with Ti, hitta. I say a lot; I mean about 80% of the forum. They have a kind of aversion to not only Ti, but confidence in one's word. So if you say "this IS the case", you will get shit for it, if it's questionable.

[Joy]

They have a kind of aversion to not only Ti, but confidence in one's word. So if you say "this IS the case", you will get shit for it, if it's questionable.

You call that confidence?

[Ezra]

You call that confidence?

Why don't you?

[Hitta]

I think it's because a lot of people have a major problem with Ti, hitta. I say a lot; I mean about 80% of the forum. They have a kind of aversion to not only Ti, but confidence in one's word. So if you say "this IS the case", you will get shit for it, if it's questionable.

I don't have confidence in anything that I say. Thats why I'm looking for an intellectual discussion. I don't believe in absolute truth.

[Joy]

You're not just saying that you have this other theory for people to consider, you're in effect saying that you're the only one who actually understands the original theory. You can't even acknowledge the possibility that you're wrong. You can blame this as well as your insistence that a theory that you do not understand is inferior compared to your (incorrect) understanding of a theory written by one socionist whose theories are not considered to be in line with traditional socionics anyways.

[Jonathan]

???

I think there has been some objective criticism/discussion of your ideas, but unfortunately the atmosphere overall has been too contentious, as you point out. One reason is that, apart from the basic structure of your theoretical ideas, your definitions and descriptions tend to be highly Alpha-centric. That is, they make other quadras look bad (e.g., the idea that Betas and Gammas have an inability to love, or that Deltas and Gammas are against any new idea).

Basically, when people identify themselves with a type, and someone says stuff that makes that type appear mostly bad, they get upset.

Another, perhaps more rational, response might be for people to think to themselves "I must be Alpha in hitta's system even if I'm another quadra in classical Socionics," but then again you tend to state that people are the same type in your system as in classical Socionics.

By the way, the fact that Gammas have criticized your theories does not in itself prove that Gammas are anti-new-idea. They may dislike your ideas for various reasons but still like some other new ideas.

[Hitta]

I think there has been some objective criticism/discussion of your ideas, but unfortunately the atmosphere overall has been too contentious, as you point out. One reason is that, apart from the basic structure of your theoretical ideas, your definitions and descriptions tend to be highly Alpha-centric. That is, they make other quadras look bad (e.g., the idea that Betas and Gammas have an inability to love, or that Deltas and Gammas are against any new idea).

Basically, when people identify themselves with a type, and someone says stuff that makes that type appear mostly bad, they get upset.

Another, perhaps more rational, response might be for people to think to themselves "I must be Alpha in hitta's system even if I'm another quadra in classical Socionics," but then again you tend to state that people are the same type in your system as in classical Socionics.

By the way, the fact that Gammas have criticized your theories does not in itself prove that Gammas are anti-new-idea. They may dislike your ideas for various reasons but still like some other new ideas.

There has to be some quadras that prefer change and others that don't, otherwise people in general would only create ideas instead of sticking with the current systems. Why is it that you think that some countries stay standing for long periods of time? If everyone preferred change there would be daily rebellions.

[Jonathan]

There has to be some quadras that prefer change and others that don't, otherwise people in general would only create ideas instead of sticking with the current systems. Why is it that you think that some countries stay standing for long periods of time? If everyone preferred change there would be daily rebellions.

There are clearly differences in the degree to which people like change. However, why would it need to fall along quadra lines? At issue, anyhow, is whether what you've experienced on the forum proves your particular theoretical viewpoint on this matter, which is that the quadras (Gamma and Delta) are the more conservative (anti-change ones), for the reason that they value "-."

I believe a more nuanced approach is probably more useful in predicting people's approach to change. Generally N types will drive change more. All types will tend to resist change in areas that seem irrelevant to their quadra values. Certain Socionic factors may be involved in being the kind of person who provides a sense of stability, such as being an S type and being a rational type. Other Socionics factors may be involved in being the kind of person who introduces chaos, such as being an N type, being an irrational type, and being a strong type. I also believe that certain non-Socionic factors, or at least factors that may be Socionics-function-related by not determined by type, also play a big factor.

Another big consideration is that change is not monolithic. People often say things like "Isn't it a shame that people around here just don't like change!" But in reality, people like some changes and not others. Nobody is going to complain if the "change" is that their salary was increased. But many people dislike changes that involve doing extra work for no certain return.

The point is, people like different kinds of change for different reasons. Since you're -valuing, it makes sense that you would see -valuing people as being resistant to your particular kind of change. But that's different from being against change altogether.

[tcaudilllg]

There has to be some quadras that prefer change and others that don't, otherwise people in general would only create ideas instead of sticking with the current systems. Why is it that you think that some countries stay standing for long periods of time? If everyone preferred change there would be daily rebellions.

You're trying to fit that frame of phenomena into socionics, when the answer is that it resides completely in yourself. I mean self as a person interdependent on others.

I'd check out the book Eight Ways to Run the Country. Or, keep on with those alternative +/- combinations.... If a gamma helps me create an idea, or at the very least, accepts my idea as valid on basis of blind faith and trust, then does that mean they aren't gamma? No, just that they are idiosyncronic to me.

[anndelise]

By the way, the fact that Gammas have criticized your theories does not in itself prove that Gammas are anti-new-idea. They may dislike your ideas for various reasons but still like some other new ideas.

agreed, people can like new ideas
but it doesn't necessarily follow that they'll like EVERY new idea that comes along