Gammas and the Ad Hominem fallacy

[Mea]

So Consenting Adult is assuming all three of those people are Gamma NTs?

There is a tendency among some people here to do that. BUT on the other hand, sometimes people just don't have hours and hours to devote to stupid arguments online, and I think it's reasonable to say, "I don't want to argue with you because you'll never get what I'm trying to say anyway." In whatever words the person chooses.

+1

[consentingadult]

So Consenting Adult is assuming all three of those people are Gamma NTs?

There is a tendency among some people here to do that. BUT on the other hand, sometimes people just don't have hours and hours to devote to stupid arguments online, and I think it's reasonable to say, "I don't want to argue with you because you'll never get what I'm trying to say anyway." In whatever words the person chooses.

You have a good point here: they might be any other type who has gone bad.

As far "I don't want to argue with you because you'll never get what I'm trying to say anyway." That is indeed what he said, but I think it's uncalled for. I know myself to be an intelligent person, with a extensive understanding of psychology that Expat cannot begin to dream of. He is just a moron and an asshole, very much like Phaedrus and Niffweed, only he's better at covering it up than others. That's what narcissistic assholes like Expat and I are good at.

I'm a little bit disappointed in your response to all of this, SM. Was it really so unreasonable of me to ask him to elaborate his position? Do you really think his response to that request displays good, mature character? What did I, and other people on this forum, do wrong to deserve these negativistic, punitive responses from these self-acclaimed Gamma NTs?

[Expat]

Thank you Joy.

For the record, the background is this:

- in discojoe's "Videos Requested" thread, I casually mentioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who I much admire and type as ESI, based on many videos and reading her writings, and other evidence;
- consentingadult said he thought she might be ILE and, much more importantly, that she might be an example of what I called the "Fe pathetic hidden agenda".
- I think this is a total misinterpretation of her motives (something that consentingadult does very often, as illustrated further in this thread).
- since he has this habit of attributing motives to others, and since in my opinion he is as wrong about her as about me here in this thread, I could see no benefit from getting into a discussion about her motives. And without that, there would be no point in getting into a discussion about her type.
- therefore, I just said, essentially, "I think you misunderstand her, and so there is no point in discussing her socionically".

And his reaction was to start this thread, and, as usual, projecting his own insecurities onto others.

[Joy]

I see it differently, their behavior is not to be explained as 'normal psychology' but as pathological. You can not say, 'hey, I'm Gamma NT, this is what I am and you have to accept it or GTFO!" That is utter bull shit and a rationalization for bad social behavior, regardless of type. There are many Gamma NTs out there in the world who are perfectly OK people.

Yeah, that's what it looked like to me. Reminds me of someone (not crazedrat), but I'm not sure who.

[consentingadult]

Thank you Joy.

For the record, the background is this:

- in discojoe's "Videos Requested" thread, I casually mentioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who I much admire and type as ESI, based on many videos and reading her writings, and other evidence;
- consentingadult said he thought she might be ILE and, much more importantly, that she might be an example of what I called the "Fe pathetic hidden agenda".
- I think this is a total misinterpretation of her motives (something that consentingadult does very often, as illustrated further in this thread).
- since he has this habit of attributing motives to others, and since in my opinion he is as wrong about her as about me here in this thread, I could see no benefit from getting into a discussion about her motives. And without that, there would be no point in getting into a discussion about her type.
- therefore, I just said, essentially, "I think you misunderstand her, and so there is no point in discussing her socionically".

And his reaction was to start this thread, and, as usual, projecting his own insecurities onto others.

You are dead wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a narcissistic intrueger(?) who almost singlehandedly caused polarization in the Netherlands by projecting her own existential psychological issues (her own isssues with her parents and family) onto Dutch society at large. This is not just my conclusion, but of many other Dutch people, and in increasing numbers since she left for the United States. Even a columnist such as French-Dutch writer Sylvain Ephimenco, who was part of her inner circle, once complained in one of his columns that Ayaan seems to have forgotten all about her Dutch friends, now that she moved up the ladder. The thing that pisses me off most about Ayaan, is that she succeeded in making my country look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. You are simply wrong in your assessment of AHA's psychology. The stand of the majority of the Dutch, even those who supported her in the past, is now that we are glad to be rid of her, so we can start building consensus again in our society, which I'm glad to report is gradually taking hold again. We'll let history decide on the true nature of AHA.

I would not have expected a person like yourself who looks in awe at powerful people to understand this. You probably see AHA as a 'strong woman' whereas in reality all of that 'strength' is just a cover up for her feelings of defectiveness. You have just proven yourself to be a shitty judge of character.

[Expat]

Consentingadult, you just confirmed that I was correct in my decision not to try to have that conversation with you.

I would not have expected a person like yourself who stand in awe of powerful people to understand this.

And here you again go for your projections.

If it is so clear that you so thoroughly misundertand me and my motivations, and it's clear that I could try to explain my true motivations to you until hell freezes over, and you'd still think you're right. So why should I even try to get into a discussion with you about her or someone else? You won't even accept my "knowledge" about something only I can know - my own motivations - so what would be the point of spending time giving you knowledge about anything else?

[consentingadult]

Yeah, that's what it looked like to me. Reminds me of someone (not crazedrat), but I'm not sure who.

I've said it several times before: I'm guilty as charged. The difference between you and I is that I have the capacity to acknowledge this.

[consentingadult]

Consentingadult, you just confirmed that I was correct in my decision not to try to have that conversation with you.



And here you again go for your projections.

If it is so clear that you so thoroughly misundertand me and my motivations, and it's clear that I could try to explain my true motivations to you until hell freezes over, and you'd still think you're right. So why should I even try to get into a discussion with you about her or someone else? You won't even accept my "knowledge" about something only I can know - my own motivations - so what would be the point of spending time giving you knowledge about anything else?

You're wrong and deluded. Period.

[Expat]

You're wrong and deluded. Period.

Are you sure you aren't Phaedrus?

[consentingadult]

Are you sure you aren't Phaedrus?

Quite sure: in essence, Phaedrus is a 'declarer', I'm an 'explainer'. Phaedrus says "I say so", I say "here is the information, my reasons, my sources". Phaedrus lack of substantial argument makes it impossible to enter into discussion with him, to exchange information, to learn from each other. My abundance in arguments (whether right or wrong) provides ample opportunities for discussion, information exchange and learning experiences.

Sad thing is, a lot of people come here to rationalize the bad aspects of their personalities, to find justification for who they are (as if their very existence ever required justification). And in that process, these people shut out threatening forces, i.e. those people who seek understanding and raise questions, e.g. out of curiosity, or because they seek self-understanding.

You and I are opposite poles, we defend two different groups. I belong to the group that has weak Se, so we are at a disadvantage. Perhaps it would be a good idea of we start another forum, one for people who know how to genuinely and on a basis of equality and mutual respect enter into a process of information exchange and learning. This forum just gives Socionics a bad name.

[Joy]

I've said it several times before: I'm guilty as charged. The difference between you and I is that I have the capacity to acknowledge this.

Everyone is wrong sometimes, and that's fine. I have no problems being wrong. When I am wrong, I appreciate discovering that such is the case. Sometimes I'm ornery, sometimes I'm obnoxious.... I guess I'm saying that I don't understand what you're talking about. What's the problem?

[consentingadult]

Everyone is wrong sometimes, and that's fine. I have no problems being wrong. When I am wrong, I appreciate discovering that such is the case. Sometimes I'm ornery, sometimes I'm obnoxious.... I guess I'm saying that I don't understand what you're talking about. What's the problem?

That's not what you said before. You said: "You think wrong". Doesn't this imply a sort of understanding, even though it is about not understanding me? All you have to do is ask, is "Hey CA, I don't quite get you, but this is my position, what is yours?" If I then reply and if you do not agree, you'll have my fullest respect, even when you are obnoxious on occasion (I don't feel it that way, btw). Last night, I said in a PM to another forum member (I will not disclose their name) that I act like an asshole myself on occasion. That is not the point, we should be able to forgive each other after a heated debate.

But I can not, and will not, accept attacks on my person without good reasons, and if it's up to me, I will also stand up for those people who are attacked but do not have the capacity to defend themselves. And that is indeed, my neurosis.

I'm sure many people on this forum recognize themselves in the following: being bullied by caretakers who only gave us love on the condition that we adhered to their standards, leaving us no room to be ourselves, leaving us no space to shape our own personalities, who robbed us of our capacity to make our own life choices. Many of us have scars on our hearts and souls. I propose we break the cycle in which we perpetuate that we transfer our attitudes towards our caretakers onto each other, and really start learning from each other, learning how to connect, learning to grow. This will, however, not happen when people are not taken seriously or belittled be being called 'idiots' all the time.

Does this answer the questions you might have?

[discojoe]

You're wrong and deluded. Period.

EXPAT HAS BEEN OWNED.

[crazedrat]

I have had detailed discussions with Phaedrus. The reason he does embark into them at every turn is because it will result in 5 pages of discussion. Unless he is interested in the discussion, he chooses to ignore it. I have already explained this to you earlier. It is not a difficult concept to understand. Sometimes people dont feel like going into a long ass debate.
....
where is the mystery in that? where are you confused? I really don't see the mental hangup here. Maybe ~you~ could explain.
You are only further illustrating the point with continuing this.

This is just a hypothesis ... but I think, perhaps, beta / alpha do not understand how much energy it takes to translate Ni impressions into words. It really takes properly sitting down and organizing the jumbled mess inside your mind. Its alot of energy, especially for far end Ni types like Phaedrus, myself, & a few other ILIs on here. It isn't just a matter of thinking and typing simultaneously. The words don't flow out that way. They have to be generated, organized, generated, organized .... it drains you. The longer this process goes on for, the more pissed off you become at the demands others are placing on you.

This problem is alot less persistent in real life interaction

[consentingadult]

The reason he does embark into them at every turn is because it will result in 5 pages of discussion.

If he is not willing to enter into discussion, he should simply say so and keep his mouth shut, instead of calling people idiots all the time. Again you are justifying and rationalizing his behavior, where there is no justification. It's simple bad, pathological behavior. He is not God, it is not his right pass value judgements on other people simply because he thinks they fail to understand what is obvious to him.

Edit: have you changed your post meanwhile? Part of becoming a mature person is not in knowing how to explain yourself, but in opening up to other people, to learn to connect. Ni is not that big a deal that it should be 'difficult' to explain to other people.

[consentingadult]

understand how much energy it takes to translate Ni impressions into words

Let it be

try to
not cheer me up
deny not
what I am now

help me
cry

---

unending

always running
away from the danger
away from the past
without future
without knowing
how to break the cycle

---

amygdala

echoes of slamming doors
aggressive yelling
stumbling and
threatening rumbling
alarming danger

feelings without words
more flight than fight

---

soothed

do you feel it too
that unrest and the urge
to do something
to feel you're still alive
into the tips of your fingers?

we smoke a joint
put on a porn movie
abstract slow motion
with atonal ambient
in subdued light

we fuck
loose time
come heavily
you abandon yourself again
and I me

(originals in Dutch)

[crazedrat]

...he lashes out because he is very tired of social interaction being reduced to the demand he completely explains himself at every turn; and that no one else seems to explain themselves.
I have felt the same way many times.
People are arrogant about what they think, and that is when ILI-Ni starts to get pissed off... because it does 1 of 2 things to them. 1: it forces them to concede to something they see is wrong, or at the least not properly explored. 2: it places an unrealistic and hypocritical demand on ILI to explain his thought process to the Nth degree.
The arrogance of not leaving an opinion open to perception and revision - the possibility and concession that yes, perhaps you could be wrong, is what will make an ILI angry at you.
I suspect this adequately explains why you are finding yourself in so many situations where ILI is angry with you.
In these situations ILI responds with hostility and arrogance equal to the perceived hostility / arrogance of the adjacent party. the arrogance you describe in ILI is present in you, it's just pompous and calm.. it is part of your attitude and demeanor about the world, and is present in your opinions.. the judgments you hold, etc. It is not desperate and seeking resolution, so it is not readily apparent and explosive.
You are content with being a pompous ass, so you appear collected about it. You have nothing to gloat about

[consentingadult]

...he lashes out because he is very tired of social interaction being reduced to the demand he completely explains himself at every turn; and that no one else seems to explain themselves.
I have felt the same way many times.
People are arrogant about what they think, and that is when ILI-Ni starts to get pissed off... because it does 1 of 2 things to them. 1: it forces them to concede to something they see is wrong, or at the least not properly explored. 2: it places an unrealistic and hypocritical demand on ILI to explain his thought process to the Nth degree.
The arrogance of not leaving an opinion open to perception and revision - the possibility and concession that yes, perhaps you could be wrong, is what will make an ILI angry at you.
I suspect this adequately explains why you are finding yourself in so many situations where ILI is angry with you.
In these situations ILI responds with hostility and arrogance equal to the perceived hostility / arrogance of the adjacent party. the arrogance you describe in ILI is present in you, it's just pompous and calm.. it is part of your attitude and demeanor about the world, and is present in your opinions.. the judgments you pass on people, etc. It is not desperate and seeking resolution, so it is not readily apparent and explosive.
You are content with being a pompous ass, so you appear collected about it. You have nothing to gloat about

That's one way of looking at it, I choose to see it differently: it's just a matter of unrelenting standards, emotional inhibition and punitiveness. It's learned, maladaptive behavior. There is a cure for that, a way out of it, a way to self-fullfilment and connectedness. But you have to choose it.

[crazedrat]

so there are two sides of the socion: the self actualized, fulfilled side.. and then the gamma side.
I guess we can all forget about the laws of duality now.
I think your signature uncovers what we should really be arguing about.
But you can look at that, and then reread my argument, and consider it my reply.

The dynamic I described above also explains why Gamma fights amongst itself more than any other quadra. Everyone gets annoyed when someone has a strong and radical opinion. Both parties don't feel like explaining themselves... the energy required to reach mutual understanding is too great, and this cripples reconciliation and leads to mutual frustration.
Again, it happens much more often online. In real life... these things are resolved with a few simple sentences, existing in a like situation, the awareness of body language.. your mind being bound by the world.

[consentingadult]

so there are two sides of the socion: the self actualized, fulfilled side.. and then the gamma side.
I guess we can all forget about the laws of duality now

Duality is a good thing, but it does not perform miracles: it works best if your psychology is a healthy one. Phaedrus behavior basically is not about Socionics type, it's about the pathological manifestation of Socionics. You can feel connected to other people, and be open to different types of personality and still be INTp. Or you can be a misanthropic INTp. You choose, it is not my problem. My problem is that I will not allow myself to be bullied or belittled by anyone.

[Joy]

That's not what you said before. You said: "You think wrong". Doesn't this imply a sort of understanding, even though it is about not understanding me?

It is an understanding about Expat. What I don't understand is what you're complaining about.

All you have to do is ask, is "Hey CA, I don't quite get you, but this is my position, what is yours?" If I then reply and if you do not agree, you'll have my fullest respect, even when you are obnoxious on occasion (I don't feel it that way, btw).

I do tend to dispense with the pleasantries (it would embarrass me to talk exactly like that, tbh), but most of the time I do respect other people's positions. In this particular case though, it was not about getting you. You had incorrectly assigned motivations to Expat. In a situation like that, it's not a simply matter of perspective. You were simply wrong. It's not a big deal, we're all wrong sometimes... since I know and understand him a lot better than you do, it is only natural that I would be in a better position to speak more accurately about his motivations than you.

For example, if you said "I think that discojoe is square dancing right now", I could confidently say "You think wrong" because he's sitting right next to me, and I therefore have information about him that you do not. There is no need for me to consider your perspective or understand your position in order for me to know that you are wrong.

Last night, I said in a PM to another forum member (I will not disclose their name) that I act like an asshole myself on occasion. That is not the point, we should be able to forgive each other after a heated debate.

I don't like telling other people how they should feel or what they should do. In a situation like that, I can only offer to agree to disagree and or make a gesture to show that there are no hard feelings on my end. Their feelings and actions are their decision.

But I can not, and will not, accept attacks on my person without good reasons, and if it's up to me, I will also stand up for those people who are attacked but do not have the capacity to defend themselves. And that is indeed, my neurosis.

You're vigilent in oldham's theory then. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=12138

However... I don't understand why you would take "you think wrong" as an attack on your person.

I'm sure many people on this forum recognize themselves in the following: being bullied by caretakers

Caretakers? I know of no one on this forum who I would describe as a caretaker. Why would a member feel a need to take responsibility for others members?

Are you referring to people who you see as being particularly "established" in some sort of hierarchy? Or particularly helpful people? Those who are seen as some sort of authority on Socionics?

who only gave us love

Love? Are you referring to positive or warm interactions? Loyalty? Praise? Attention and affection?

on the condition that we adhered to their standards, leaving us no room to be ourselves, leaving us no space to shape our own personalities,

I can understand why someone would accuse phaedrus of this, but I'm at a loss in terms of why you would think that Expat or I am trying to tell you what kind of personality you should have. Disagreeing with something you say is very different from crossing such a boundary.

Also, why do you care what someone you see as harmful thinks? Why would you feel compelled to recieve such a person's approval?

who robbed us of our capacity to make our own life choices.

Life choices? Isn't that going a bit too far? (Lol, I have this mental picture of Expat towering over someone saying "I'm not going to love you unless you quit your job!" or "You'll recieve no more of my love until you've married the person I've selected for you." )

Many of us have scars on our hearts and souls. I propose we break the cycle in which we perpetuate that we transfer our attitudes towards our caretakers onto each other

I don't really understand what you're talking about here, either... Are you assuming that people who you have problems with have had problems in their relationships with their parents or something?

and really start learning from each other, learning how to connect, learning to grow. This will, however, not happen when people are not taken seriously or belittled be being called 'idiots' all the time.

The only person that any of us is (or ever could be) responsible for is ourselves. You cannot change another person. You can only change your reaction and response to that person.

Does this answer the questions you might have?

It answers a lot of them, if you are indeed Vigilant.

[crazedrat]

The laws of duality I was applying to the entire socion, implying there was no superior or inferior quadra... something you have been grasping toward this entire discussion, and culminated in your last post.
I do think ILI is displaying a weakness in this respect, but not in how you are looking at it. Their weakness is in expecting other people to understand them at all- longing to change and show the world what they think. In not being able to lie down and say "okay, you're right" ... (option 1 in the previous post), they are being weak.
Not so different from you refusing ... "to sit idle and allow the weak to be victimized" or something like that (your words).
Your weakness is that you can't lie down.
So yeah, you got me there.
Now tell me your type

[Lotus]

lol @ this thread

[crazedrat]

SILENCE!

[JuJu]

the idea that ppl could take away from this thread is that this forum would be better/more effective if ppl stopped using ad hominem attacks over something as silly as typings.

--

I've read the crazedrat's posts re: why phaedrus acts as he does--the thing is, if someone responds to someone's earnest statement/inquiry w/ "you are a moron." or something like that, it makes the person who made the original statement feel bad (in general)/unwelcomed/devalued, etc... No one wants to feel that way--and to be honest, everyone has something to contribute here.

I know that this ad hominem stuff has caused longtime posters/newbies to leave the forum... IMO, that's a shame.

What Joy wrote about gestures of "no hard feelings" = excellent, IMO... Furthermore, I agree with her; "you think wrong," followed by an explanation/"I don't want to argue further" is not an ad hominem attack.

"You are a moron" = ad hominem attack, i.e. by definition, attacking the person to discredit the person's argument.

I think it's reasonable to say, "I don't want to argue with you because you'll never get what I'm trying to say anyway." In whatever words the person chooses.

I agree w/ your premise... But I'd caveat it: it'd be great if the person thought about the words they were choosing to say "I don't have time," i.e. just to make sure they weren't coming across as a total douchebag.

[Slacker]

You have a good point here: they might be any other type who has gone bad.

As far "I don't want to argue with you because you'll never get what I'm trying to say anyway." That is indeed what he said, but I think it's uncalled for. I know myself to be an intelligent person, with a extensive understanding of psychology that Expat cannot begin to dream of. He is just a moron and an asshole, very much like Phaedrus and Niffweed, only he's better at covering it up than others. That's what narcissistic assholes like Expat and I are good at.

I'm a little bit disappointed in your response to all of this, SM. Was it really so unreasonable of me to ask him to elaborate his position? Do you really think his response to that request displays good, mature character? What did I, and other people on this forum, do wrong to deserve these negativistic, punitive responses from these self-acclaimed Gamma NTs?

Well, first, there could be other reasons for thinking you wouldn't get something than because you're stupid. Maybe it's just because you have a different understanding of Socionics.

Also, when you ask people to elaborate, it looks more like you're trying to engage them in arguments. And not everyone is into that, and not everyone has time for that. It sounds like every time someone bows out of an argument, you want to call that an example of the Ad Hominem fallacy.

[Joy]

Well, first, there could be other reasons for thinking you wouldn't get something than because you're stupid. Maybe it's just because you have a different understanding of Socionics.

In this case (both in regards to the conversations about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and about Expat) it was a matter of having a different understanding of the person. Expat's understanding of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's motivations and my understanding of Expat's motivations differed from consentingadult's. In the case of our understanding of Expat, I flat out said that consentingadult was wrong because... well, he was. In the case of the discussion about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, my understanding is that Expat bowed out of the conversation because neither of them knows Ayaan Hirsi Ali personally and he didn't feel like debating the Ayaan Hirsi Ali's motivations, something which would be time consuming and fruitless.

Anyways, it comes down to recognizing the another person's premises on a matter are so different from your own that discussing the matter would take far more time and effort than it's worth.

Also... personally, Expat has NEVER struck me as being "punitive". I'm guessing he just reminds consentingadult of someone else, so anger meant for that person is being directed towards him. (Yes implied, I'm being the therapist. )

[Slacker]

I see him getting annoyed with people and short with them sometimes, but not "punitive". That's assuming a motivation that IMO just isn't there. People can feel negatively without feeling punitive. It sounds to me more like he just doesn't want to waste any more time on something rather than that he wants to punish anyone.

[Joy]

Yes, it's just impatience.

I should also point out that I find the assumption that people are in some way obligated to offer lengthy explanations for their opinions to be completely ridiculous.

[JuJu]

lol @ your signature, Joy

I agree--it's silly to suggest that someone should be obligated to provide a lengthy explanation of w/e concept...

Also, to lump Expat in with some of these others re: ad hominem attacks, I believe, is quite unfair to Expat.

That said, if CA is ENFp, he is probably sensitive to ppl's good/bad intentions... And whether or not he's being respected in a given situation... I am similar like that... So if he's anything like me, in this situation, I believe he prob felt disrespected/devalued by the particular response.

[Joy]

lol @ your signature, Joy

lol, thanks

I agree--it's silly to suggest that someone should be obligated to provide a lengthy explanation of w/e concept...

Also, to lump Expat in with some of these others re: ad hominem attacks, I believe, is quite unfair to Expat.

This topic came about because consentingadult was upset with Expat.

That said, if CA is ENFp, he is probably sensitive to ppl's good/bad intentions... And whether or not he's being respected in a given situation... I am similar like that... So if he's anything like me, in this situation, I believe he prob felt disrespected/devalued by the particular response.

While that does appear to be his reason and it's possible that he is indeed IEE, I was thinking that Fe ego was more likely for him.

[Joy]

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/38168.html

[Slacker]

While that does appear to be his reason and it's possible that he is indeed IEE, I was thinking that Fe ego was more likely for him.

Yeah, I thought this whole thread might be summed up as, "Someone, won't someone PLEASE give me some Ti?!?!"

[Joy]

Yeah, I thought this whole thread might be summed up as, "Someone, won't someone PLEASE give me some Ti?!?!"

Yes, I was thinking that as well... Also, a tendency to "dispense with the pleasantries" does seem to offend him.

[Bardia]

I don't think Expat was trying to call you stupid. It seems more like he was saying that he has his own opinion and you have yours and he doesn't see anyway of changing your opinion or him changing his own. So he decided to circumvent a long amount of conversing and wasting of energy.

That's not ad hominem. It's simply not wasting your time. I do this all the time irl with people when I don't feel like arguing.

[Ezra]

Gammas suchs as Expat, Niffweed and Phaedrus are simply frauds. This is why:

Ad Hominem

Remember this when they try beat you into submission by claiming you are not smart enough, or simply an idiot. This is not what they really think of you on the cognitive level, in reality they are afraid of you, and thus you must be 'destroyed'. Their very self-esteem depends on it.

With that in the back of your mind, you can only feel sorry for them. Don't think too bad of them, but make sure you don't suffer yourself either by letting them get to you.

Interesting perspective. Well done for bringing it up.

I agree with your fundamental viewpoint. Gamma NTs are low on Se, and thus they must compensate for this with aggressively rational thought. Often this descends into a mere "defence" of the Gamma NT, as they feel threatened in some way.

However, I don't think we should criticise Gamma NTs for the way in which they fight (verbally). We don't criticise SLEs for punching little girls in the face, so why should we criticise the LIE for telling someone to "fuck off" in an intellectual, "diplomatic" way?

[Joy]

We don't criticise SLEs for punching little girls in the face

LOL

[Logos]

does consentingadult remind anyone else of crazedrat?

Yes.

[consentingadult]

Well, first, there could be other reasons for thinking you wouldn't get something than because you're stupid. Maybe it's just because you have a different understanding of Socionics.

Also, when you ask people to elaborate, it looks more like you're trying to engage them in arguments. And not everyone is into that, and not everyone has time for that. It sounds like every time someone bows out of an argument, you want to call that an example of the Ad Hominem fallacy.

Not in this case. Expat is covering up for the fact that he is not as knowledgeable as many people believe. Now that isnot his fault, his fault is that he basks in on this glory, and even goes so far that he belittles me in a very clever way in order to maintain that position.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It doesn't take a genius to work out that there is a group of bullies-a heirarchy if you will, of people who look to control socionics and it's interpretation of it on this forum. When someone steps out of line with that on this forum they are belittled, ostracized, ridiculed even, passively or not so passive aggressively attacked.

Although why they act that way, I don't know fully, and how some people can align themselves to it, makes me wonder, do they really believe, or are they just afraid and looking to fit in.

It's like the kids at school too busy trying to be someone else identity than express their own, or the guy that buys his boss a paper and a coffee every morning while on his way to work. These people exist in many places, and I know we all have to "fit in" to some degree, but how much and at what cost?