Important: please read

[Joy]

There are no qualities that apply to every single person of a specific type.

There are no qualities that only one type possesses.

One should not type people based on one quality or one method.

What people do is not type related. Why they do it is.

[xyz]

Dunno, people are stupid? Or more accurately they think no variations exist on a type?

[Joy]

[mimisor]

I think some qualities are type-related. However, that doesn't mean that the quality is of same specificity or intensity in all people of that type.

[Gilly]

You're missing the point. Some people don't even actively THINK about doing this stuff, they just DO it, which is why we need to regulate the input they receive from people who should be giving them helpful explanations. Not trying to bring the hammer down or anything; I just want people to be aware of the consequences of the things they say.

[Joy]

You're missing the point. Some people don't even actively THINK about doing this stuff, they just DO it, which is why we need to regulate the input they receive from people who should be giving them helpful explanations. Not trying to bring the hammer down or anything; I just want people to be aware of the consequences of the things they say.

Apparently I am missing the point, because I have no idea how I could word what I say so that people will automatically, instinctively know not to insert absolutes into my sentences as they read them. I've actually made an effort for quite a while now to put words like "often" and "may" and "could" and "perhaps" and "possibly" and "generally" into my posts because of the tendency some people here (I've never had this problem elsewhere) have to read misinterpret what I say because they imagine words like "all" and "always" and "never" and whatnot exist in what I'm saying even though they clearly do not. If that's not enough, I don't see how it's my problem. I mean, what more could I possibly do to avoid this? I already edit myself enough as it is. If you're looking for more diplomacy from me, you're not going to get it. If you're expecting me to cater to people who cannot understand simple concepts such as the ones I've listed in my original post, you're not going to get that either.

If you come up with an effortless way to magically teach people not to make false assumptions, let me know. Until then, if someone is stupid enough to assume that all "know it alls" are LSI's or that all LSI's are "know it alls" because of something I once posted, that's their problem. Feel free to bitch about it all you'd like. It won't change anything.

[anndelise]

What people do is not type related. Why they do it is.

heh, then it would make more sense to describe ExFp's as the "Know-It-Alls" wouldn't it?


(and for those who didn't grasp the connections: "Why they do it" --> HA "to know" --> "Know-It-Alls")
(and let me tell you, there's little that's worse than an ExFp who thinks they know it all)
*looks innocent*

[Bardia]

Apparently I am missing the point, because I have no idea how I could word what I say so that people will automatically, instinctively know not to insert absolutes into my sentences as they read them. I've actually made an effort for quite a while now to put words like "often" and "may" and "could" and "perhaps" and "possibly" and "generally" into my posts because of the tendency some people here (I've never had this problem elsewhere) have to read misinterpret what I say because they imagine words like "all" and "always" and "never" and whatnot exist in what I'm saying even though they clearly do not. If that's not enough, I don't see how it's my problem. I mean, what more could I possibly do to avoid this? I already edit myself enough as it is. If you're looking for more diplomacy from me, you're not going to get it. If you're expecting me to cater to people who cannot understand simple concepts such as the ones I've listed in my original post, you're not going to get that either.

If you come up with an effortless way to magically teach people not to make false assumptions, let me know. Until then, if someone is stupid enough to assume that all "know it alls" are LSI's or that all LSI's are "know it alls" because of something I once posted, that's their problem. Feel free to bitch about it all you'd like. It won't change anything.

I always try to take into consideration that people of type X have tendencies and maybe not absolute behaviors or motivations. I think you made it clear that not all LSI's and LSE's are all those traits you mentioned in the other post. The traits you listed may just be things you have observed and apply to some but not all of the people of those types. Don't worry so much about what other people think .

[Gilly]

People can inject absolutes into anything. I just want to particularly avoid the ones with negative connotation and absolutely no relation to type. That ok with you?

[Joy]

People can inject absolutes into anything. I just want to particularly avoid the ones with negative connotation and absolutely no relation to type. That ok with you?

I generally do (or at least try to). I didn't think "know it all" was negative though, and while I worded it poorly, I do think that the idea I was attempting to convey helps to paint a general picture of a possible difference between many LSI's and LSE's.

[Joy]

I always try to take into consideration that people of type X have tendencies and maybe not absolute behaviors or motivations. I think you made it clear that not all LSI's and LSE's are all those traits you mentioned in the other post. The traits you listed may just be things you have observed and apply to some but not all of the people of those types. Don't worry so much about what other people think .

You're right. (:

[aestrivex]

You're right. (:

OMFG LOL j00 POSTED A BACKWERDZ EMOTICON LOL

[Joy]

cause I can't type it the right way or it will look like

[aestrivex]

cause I can't type it the right way or it will look like

OMG j00 TYPED AN EMOTICON THAT YOU SAY YOU HATE YOU FUCKING HYPOCRITE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE

[Joy]