???
???
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
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?
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
exactly
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
.
Because I'm an old, conservative redneck fart, of course, and I want to shoot you anarchist idiot trying to enter my property!
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I disagree with that. Certainty that something is happening, and offering that to others, is just as important to society as certainty that something is there.Originally Posted by Joy
Also Hitta has not revealed to us the true extent of his thinking processes, of that much I am sure. But with so much distrust of him, and I would argue, misunderstanding of his motives, he isn't about to open up to us on that count.
You were exhalting my offering over his. I was pointing out that both mine and Hitta's offerings have value. (equal value, I suspect.)
Hitta is an adaptist: his specialty is creating novel applications of phenomena he is aware of. Committing to its application as a worthy use of one's energy is an important sign of the relevance of a given phenomena. Even if he isn't found to be totally right, or even partially misunderstanding of the phenomena himself, someone must make that first step.
I dont dislike you hitta, but you seriously need to put a shirt on and button it up before doing youtube =P
It's true. The atmosphere here is hypercritical and argumentative. There are a lot of intellectually aggressive people here, if that makes any sense. We complain and bitch way too much, and we often don't treat people very well. There's far less encouragement and acceptance (or even tolerance) of others on this forum than would be ideal.
I'm reminded of that teacher that did the experiment where she divided the class into blue eyes and brown eyes. I think I'll start a thread.
i don't dislike change and i certainly do not dislike new ideas. what i dislike is when a new idea is stated as truth without sufficient evidence and with no regard for prior ideas or even the fundamental structure of a theory which you claim to be building upon, and which you yourself have not created.
if you'd like to recreate the theory, then its no longer socionics, so give credit where it's due. if you would like to bat around half-baked ideas all day long, i would be glad to play with you and i'm sure others would go for this as well. however, you don't seem to possess the open minded attitude that would make sharing your ideas with the forum beneficial to you and the development of your ideas, let alone beneficial to anyone else.
therefore, if you are interested in being taken seriously for your ideas, i think you should start taking those who criticize/question your ideas more seriously.
whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.
Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
why don't you tell me. and i am assuming your entire counter argument here is "you are stupid because i have the most open mind ever. qed."
and on the issue of my making the dumbest statement you've ever heard, i am not surprised. i generally like to strive for this in order to possibly one day invoke the wrath of evil geniuses everywhere.
whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.
Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee
Just my opinion, and you can take it for what it is. I think that the key to having a good discussion is to ignore people who are being rude or using any kind of invective, and look hard for the posts that have constructive comments, constructive criticism, and other relevant ideas and insights...and there are quite a few if you look for them.
If someone just says "your ideas or stupid," there's no need to answer that person. Just change your focus to the posts that make objective comments, and there are plenty of those too, and it will probably improve things quite a bit.
lmaoOriginally Posted by Jadae
agreed.Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa
your defensive attitude helps nothing. it seems whenever someone halfway accuses you of something, or offers some objective criticism, you start talking about how you never did what they said you did, or how you never claimed an idea as true, but rather, simply proposed it.Originally Posted by hitta