Why don't you?Originally Posted by Joy
Why don't you?
we dislike your "innovations" because they're stupid. we dislike you as a person because you try to impose this shit upon us.
this is a simple explanation which answers the question in the thread's title. if you don't like it, go fuck yourself.
Yea that makes a lot of sense. It's like you're saying," I'm not gonna listen to what you say, your on ignore, but whatever you said you're stupid."
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
I call that bullishness, willful ignorance of the worst kind, unreasonableness, arrogance, senseless self-sacrifice to one's ego, an inferiority complex, or simply being a huge dumbass.
(I'm not talking about hitta here, btw. I'm just offering my view of saying "this IS the case", especially if it's questionable.)
uh, if Person A is confident in their view of something and Person B tells them they're wrong:
If Person A stands by his view (because he's confident in it) then Person B calls Person A "bullish, willfully ignorant, unreasonable, etc etc etc".
If Person A changes his view then he's no longer confident in that first view.
But if Person B insists on trying to get Person A to change his view, then it stands to reason that Person B is being just as "bullish, willfully ignorant, unreasonable, etc etc" as Person B claims A is.
(*giggles* brings back memories, don't it)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
heh
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
There's a difference between being confident in an idea and being a confident person.uh, if Person A is confident in their view of something and Person B tells them they're wrong:
If Person A stands by his view (because he's confident in it) then Person B calls Person A "bullish, willfully ignorant, unreasonable, etc etc etc".
If Person A changes his view then he's no longer confident in that first view.
But if Person B insists on trying to get Person A to change his view, then it stands to reason that Person B is being just as "bullish, willfully ignorant, unreasonable, etc etc" as Person B claims A is.
(*giggles* brings back memories, don't it
But either way, if someone refuses to accept the possibility that they're wrong, yes, I see them as "bullish, willfully ignorant, unreasonable, etc etc" (especially if they try to force their opinions onto others by calling them FACTS and whatnot). However, being willing to accept the possibility that you are wrong is not the same as changing your mind. Working under the assumption that something is correct is not the same as what ezra and I were talking about.
Kinda like how you refuse to see how your poorly-worded descriptions can have negative impacts on peoples' views of the types and the way they view the system?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I'm not refusing to see it. I just don't think there's anything I can do about it (at least not anything more than I already have).
So, confidence that one's view is correct.
no; certitude that one's view is correct. there's a difference.
exactly
I personally don't dislike you, Hitta. That said, I'm not fond of your type descriptions.
I seem to take issue the most with statements that cast certain types in a negative light, as though these negative qualities (such as not being capable of love--which is something that most/all humans are capable of) are actually part of what the type is about. Your ISFj description in particular was really quite bad in this sense. I guess it concerned me and then I felt the need to criticize it... I'm not trying to throw all objectivity to the wind--it's more that I didn't think your type descriptions were very objective in the first place--and I have silently agreed when Joy has mentioned that your samplings seem to be rather small and the descriptions themselves seems to be laced with a certain bitterness. (I realize that this is just how it appears, and may not in fact be the case.)
Also, I think people try to "talk some sense" into you and then when this appears to bounce off you as though you are a brick wall, they become frustrated. I'm not saying that others have more sense than you do, just that when they counter what you say, you seem to just reiterate what you said before without considering their arguments/statements/objections/criticisms/etc. In other words, you can seem quite fixated on your ideas and unswayable.
Very well put. My top concerns are:
1.) Small sample groups, some of which consist of fictional characters(this is particularly disturbing to me, especially when combined with numbers 2 and 4)
2.) Insistence that his descriptions/idea are accurate
3.) Ignoring information when convenient (such as Gulenko's own quadra descriptions!!! even though his ideas and descriptions are based on one of Gulenko's theories) and refusing to answer when asked about it
4.) Describing very unhealthy people and insisting that what he's talking about are type qualities true of all people of that type
5.) Insulting those who don't agree with him, thinking that he knows more than everyone else (including actual socionists), and refusing to accept criticism and use it to grow in his understanding of socionics or improve his ideas
6.) Claiming to have come up with an original or innovative idea when all he's done is misunderstand one of someone else's theories and then build type/quadra descriptions around that misunderstanding (if you want to see an innovative idea, look at tcaudilllg's theory)
.
Being innovative has absolutely nothing to do with why you're disliked... When you go around spreading your ideas about what socionics TRUELLY IS like it's the gospel, you create problems...Talking down to people isn't all that helpful either...
And does it really count as innovation when you're trying to reinvent something that doesn't need to be reinvented??
You want some cheeze with that whine?
Hitta, when you essentially invert a system that a great deal of people thinks is true, and then say your system is most definitely the correct understanding of said system without offering any evidence or proof for the matter, then you are obviously going to receive negative feedback about your system and its ideas. What you have been trying to do and in all likelihood still doing is nothing but a dogmatic forcing of your ideas upon us. And that, quite honestly, is useless.
Edit: seems like this response has been stated in almost identical meaning again and again in this topic. Can't you see that we're not trying to conspire against your innovativeness, but instead having a natural reaction to your bullheaded style of discussion about your ideas?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"
