Something that I noticed recently while reading her articles: @anndelise - ILE > IEE. There is structural clarity, and she often incorporates anticipating an emotional response from the reader, then goes on explaining systematically whether this reaction is justified based on the reasoning and facts at hand. IEE would provide the stimulus themselves but not expect something in return, while eschewing clarity, nothing really is concise and fits together. In this very excellent video she made it's clear that logics are her strength, apologies but I have to dig this one up it's too good:
Did you just take my response and fashion a motivation for a completely different person out of it? I don't think the people who made it are so invested in this whole thing. Even I don't feel spiteful towards Sol as a person (considering the time dimension ;p) and I've been more vocal about things.
I'm tired and I think the sooner I stop helping drag this out the sooner rev will feel OK to post again so I should let it go... I just don't want my words to be used against other people.
well the answer is fundamentally that both parties created openings for others to criticize which others promptly took up. at the end of the day it takes two to conflict and you're right, if you want to, so to speak, lay down the sword, it is the only way to end things if the conflict has taken on such a life of its own that its outweighs whatever gain was perceived in initiating it on her behalf from the get go. the bottom line is though I feel like the people "defending" her "from" Sol, are simply wrong, and the fact that they went after him "teaches him a lesson" only proves that they're really not in this to minimize harm but rather its rooted in underlying resentment toward Sol and they saw this as an opportunity to revenge at him because perhaps he made some kind of tactical blunder in going after such a "sympathetic" victim and so all their cries of compassion toward Reverie are empty, because good will toward her is only pretense operating as a smokescreen in order to vent their resentment towards him. I feel like if they really cared about her, the answer would not be to hide from suggested problems but to simply work through them or dissolve them but not to simply attack the messenger. To go after the messenger betrays their heightened priority in all of this. The sort of displays of power that we've seen around here lately are just those latent drives manifesting up through the cracks.
I believe you are good in all this lungs and don't fall into this angle, but for whatever reason they managed to make it look like you're on that side of things when you're not. If the only response is I take all this too seriously then I'm super happy with that
the banner is my fault. seriously it was just funny to me at the time, brought some humor to the situation to lighten things up for me, and like lungs said was a perfect thing to pay homage to the quirky family we have here on the forum. but idk, after hearing what you said @Bertrand i can't deny that there was a sense of light hearted revenge at Sol in it as I've had a couple really frustrating interractions with him before as a moderator/subadmin or whatever i was where the language thing and Sols insistance that it didn't exist ended up making me just throw my hands up in the air, and I was kinda worked up over the not backing off when told to fuck off by reverie.
i take the blame on that. @Kimu probably just listened to me and put it up right away as appreciation for helping him out a little with forum style admin tricks from time to time (or just because he's helpful like that ).
anyways, sorry everyone, my bad. (although I still think it's a funny and perfect banner for the forum if @Sol is okay with it , but after thinking about it, it might annoy @reverie too as a reminder of the conflict by putting it up there in the banner on every page. Fuck.)
Last edited by bgbg; 12-08-2017 at 05:36 AM.
awesome, well to me this is the happiest imaginable possible ending so thank you.. I don't think anyone will hold a grudge, I know my respect for you has grown 10 times this day, because your response strikes me as truly sincere and benevolent, and there's really nothing more anyone can ask
I can't speak for others, but my motivation for calling out Sol was specifically for defending Reverie. Sol and I may not have the best relations, but I wouldn't use that situation as an opportunity to get revenge on him. If I were bent on revenge, I would be a lot more hostile and persistent.
Anyways, the main issue with Sol was that he made assumptions on someone's quality of marriage with little to no knowledge. Imagine if an acquaintance goes up to someone he hardly knows and says that their marriage is not good and it would be beneficial to find someone else. Naturally someone would react negatively to that.
The reason being that an acquaintance can have assumptions of a marriage, but unless they are close to them in their life like a close friend or a relative and witnessed questionable behavior then they are in no position to make assumptions without sufficient evidence.
I also don't buy the idea that if their marriage was good, there would be no negative reaction. Most relationships are not perfect whether they are good or bad. Telling someone that their imperfect, but overall positive relationship is not good will magnify issues that are present in almost any relationship and turn a molehill into a mountain.
Every relationship is going to require work and giving up on it should be used on relationships that are toxic or negative for one or both parties. Normal relationships with regular ups and downs don't need to be broken up if there is no need.
Finally, I understand that Sol has good intentions, but good intentions can lead to negative consequences and just because someone means well does not mean what they are doing is positive for the person they are trying to help. Especially if they are making baseless assumptions with little proof.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
so? to me this is mere pretense, because everyone does this to some extent to everything. the whole point is if its a mere assumption it literally can't effect anything unless your love is primarily based on what other people assume it to be, and that's not really love, and that makes Sol fundamentally correct in his assessment because of an overreaction indicating precisely the abovethe main issue with Sol was that he made assumptions on someone's quality of marriage with little to no knowledge
Yes, I understand that. This is why I don't have any qualms with Sol personally, but rather what he did specfically. Pretense is fine in most situations, but in certain situations such as relationships when it wasn't asked for is out of bounds.
If someone mentions things about their relationship that is negative that characterized abuse in some form then offering your input is acceptable. This situation had no hint of it at all, which is why it was not necessary.
Like I said before, a negative reaction to a stranger or an acquaintance questioning their marriage is understandable even if their marriage is good because they find it an issue they don't want it talked about publically.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
yup talk is cheap, people can say whatever. its the underlying truth value that matters. liars or those that are consistently misinformed fundamentally do more harm to their own reputation over time than they do to anyone else's. slander by a community wholesale is not prevented by shutting down communication but by promoting it. the truth will set you free. I detect a lot of beta subjectivist fascist undertones in both of your guys' posts. this idea that strict control is everyone's right and somehow proper for its own sake
by all means, flip out and enforce your universal right to be offended at anything, but as we see here, it accomplishes the opposite because it indicates a heightened sensitivity to something, because by definition one is not offended by everything, although they may have that right, they still nevertheless choose, and here they're choosing based on putatively erroneous perception alone, presumably, which says a lot
there's also a distinction between saying "your husband has AIDS" to a group when its not true and "maybe you and your husband have some underlying issues that are causing you mental trouble" to a group when its not true. in the case of the latter if its not true the suggestion is totally inert. the former may have real consequences and thus could be objected to not because you love them less or whatever
Last edited by Bertrand; 12-08-2017 at 05:18 PM.
talk is cheap but intent matters, the whole point, if you go back and read, is the forum logo was intentionally (which by the way was corroborated by the folks that did it) whereas Sol's advice was well intentioned and not meant as an insult. What matters is intent, transmuting something well intentioned into an insult is wrong, but taking something that is intentionally meant to be an insult and calling it out is proper, because my point has never been that insults don't exist, just from where they flow. thats precisely why the banner was so stupid, because it presupposed that it was on the same level as Sol's post when it was clearly worse, and inasmuch as it tries to collapse the distinction it tries to get away with something bad on the grounds that it is justified inasmuch as no one can sort out the difference, and what that really implies is something is okay if no one can figure out exactly the way in which I've concealed my ill intent. its essentially the whole attempt to do whatever one can get away with without concern for the actual propriety of the thing, which is an inherently evil project--because it elevates "what I can get away with" as primary over "what is truly good"
which is what makes all your objections so ironic because its all phrased in the language of concern for this person but its all just a sheen on resentment engaged in precisely the above project (to launder evil without concern for the truth except inasmuch as it implicates you). inasmuch as you're complicit in such a project you are a bad human being, not Sol
Bullying: use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something.
So following someone around relentlessly, despite them saying leave me alone, to force THEIR interpretation onto someone else. To FORCE them to accept their wishes and demands in order to stop the force being applied. IS bullying.
Unless there's something wrong with @Sol, that he can't recognize what bullying is, in which case he's in no position to comment on peoples lives anyway, then clearly he is aware of what bullying is, but just didn't care to stop.
The forum logo wasn't bullying - because the person didn't say it was a problem, you did, but notice it's been taken down.
BTW, you know and most others know too, that you're just spinning - you've said yourself that there's a problem with people ...
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/42992-Random-Thought-Thread?p=1241569&viewfull=1#post1241569
How do you know the intentions of people saying stuff like "fuck your face"? how do you know they're not just joking or it's their way of getting on? You say that words don't matter, it's the intention, but here you are you're very self saying something COMPLETELY different when it suits you.Originally Posted by bertrand
You're best just to accept defeat and stop trying to convince yourself or everyone you're infallible and never wrong, unless gaslighting really is just your gig.
this completely glosses over intent and infers a misdeed based solely on the overreaction, it simply says no one would react so harshly if there wasn't something wrong going on, and on that point we all seem to agree
the bottom line is you want to say the fault lies with Sol, whereas I say that is misplaced, and inasmuch as people insist on it, they misdirect off of the real problem and solution-- so they're not even helping their alleged victim
i say the guide as to where the fault lies should be informed by intent, you don't seem to have a real response to that
I mean its Fe in a nutshell, to infer a misdeed based on reaction is to totally abdicate moral initiative to the unilateral reaction of the hysteroid in question. this is %100 susceptible to manipulation and I flat out reject that form of moral calculation. this is precisely how Hamlet manipulates people and you're a fool if you fall for it
You have now entered the zone of aardvarkian logick... you are better off talking to that brick wall. All they do is posture and forage (for Fe). Now and then they think they have found easy prey and are shocked to find out the prey bites back, hard.
Stop feeding the aardvark your Fe people! Starve that creature.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Oh, OK, like your intent when you said that you actively use like/constructive people to be sarcastic about them - yes of course you are all very genuine and serene. It's those pesky people who interfere with your fun and call you out that's the problem! ... oh wait, that's intent?
are you asking me to explain sarcasm to you? because I can show how sarcasm and malice aren't the same thing, because it goes to intent not manifestation. I know this is probably very difficult for Fe types to understand but I'm willing to walk you through it if you're sincerely interested
otherwise if it was just a shitty rhetorical grab, then yeah, your ignorance is on parade and I'm not sure if you want to get better of if I should bother
It's good, as her conflict is not with me, but with Socionics. That text, representing the forum, could symbolicly remind that, in case she read my messages of that day (she did not). It's appropriate and expected here to get the analyses from types and IR side. She gave info, whined about problems and have gotten typology's help.
The only I did befor the situation gone to drama in her mind, - pointed that her IR could be better and so she'd felt better. There is nothing significant to think other according to the theory and known for their typing. Then she fought with own projections, with own feelings and thoughts supressed to her unconscious. That is why her emotions were irrationaly too negative from the situation. It's all fits to the ESI and E-9 behavior.
sorry you guys don't like bluntness but this is what peak performance looks like
lol
@Bertrand: LII-Ne
@hatchback176: ILI-Ni
@woofwoofl: ESE-Fe
@Capitalist Pig: ILI-Te
@FDG: LIE-Ni
@Adam Strange: LIE-Ni
@Cuivienen: EIE-Ni
@rat200Turbo: IEI-Ni
@Aylen: IEI-Ni
@Retsu77: LII-Ti
@Red Villain: SLI-Te
@Slade: ?LI
I'll update these as needed.
Last edited by Aramas; 12-08-2017 at 07:59 PM.
I thought this thread was supposed to be all rainbows, socionics and goodwill.
I'm still pretty new here. I don't have enough life experience to comment on marital issues, but whatever the root of this problem is, I don't think it matters. They are reaching out, branching like tendrils into the soil around us. They are running too deep to be removed.
What we can do is reconcille, though. Both parties should take some axes, cut the damn diseased tree down, and make room for the healthy ones. A forest can't grow on rotting corpses. Unless they're burried, of course. Makes for great fertilizer.
Sorry if this was uncalled for, but there was only oh so much watching from the side. My two pennies (Pun intended!)
PS: Hey everyone!
@Scarper
To look closer to T types you should not excessively use "liking" the posts. It's suspicious. Be severe and cold SLI. Or no one will agree with you, as being F type you are always wrong.
I've kind of had my fill talking to walls haha, but i'll do what I like - to type people on the basis of liking or disliking posts is ridiculous. Nor will I be severe and cold, something which SLIs are not ... they may appear that way to you, because you don't know them well, but if you knew them a bit better, or referred to socionics a little more, you'd know or see something other than that,
Type descriptions refer to SLIs appearing cold but being affected by emotions, they're sensitive on the inside. Further things you'll read about SLI's, such as, 'Does everything to save a person if hears cries for help.' As Gulenko says, but it's in all or most of the descriptions. What you see as me being 'F' with reverie, is really me caring for people who I see as needing help.
There's a wealth of stuff I could post supporting SLI, but, I didn't come here to be typed, I've settled on my type and discussed it with friends who've known me for a long time, many years, and it's the type I am.
People are multi-faceted sol, I almost made the same mistake as you, for maybe 10 seconds (or 10 minutes), but then I remembered, this is the internet and it's silly to think or presume I can know a persons type with utter certainty based on a couple of posts - or have basis to suspect my ability is so great, to continue going after that person. Socionics explains deep underlying psychic ways of processing, much of people and life is shaped by other things, typing can only happen with close observation over time, it's silly to think typings can happen so easily online.
Since when does being offended by one specific thing mean being offended by anything? I personally think society in general gets offended way too easily nowadays. Despite this, I still think there should be minimal basic standards to adhere to in social conduct.
Anyways, the whole problem with your argument is that it is based on the assumption that she got offended because her marriage is bad when there is the more likely possibility that she did not want her marriage discussed publically in a negative fashion even if it is completely fine.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Oh, I'm not offended, just curious to understand more. You don't need to apologize.
However, I feel that Penny's answer to my question was revealing in many ways.
She clearly feels that conflict in and of itself is a bad thing; that it is the source of the world's problems, and that if you could somehow remove prejudice, everyone would be happy. This is a very Delta-ish viewpoint, and you'll see iterations of it expressed often by self-typed EIIs on the forum. My perspective is in opposition to hers: I view conflict as inevitable and see differences as a natural part of life - they enable us to compete, succeed, distinguish ourselves and evolve to become better. It is our struggle to achieve in life and overcome adversity which makes us truly great. Harmony in a society would quickly become stifling and depressing. Such comfort would only make us weak. While I believe that we need some resolution in our personal lives - the needs to be loved by another, and to love ourselves, must be realized for true happiness - love itself would lose all value if everyone got along.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 12-08-2017 at 08:16 PM.