You should try some creative writing exercises.Originally Posted by niffer
You should try some creative writing exercises.
Sorry, but no, not moving an ontopic post just because you don't like it. The argument in your type thread has nothing to do with it either.
I do appreciate your removing those off topic posts. I'm going to go now and move the off topic ones written by me (and the ones made after your request) as I finally got home.
You still do not have objectivity here however if you think that it was harassment just because I expressed disagreement with your ideas about the theory.
Or if you feel that was harassment where I put a "?!" (twice in the entire long post), well no, it was slight impatience, no more.
How about your own previously expressed strong impatience then, if this was harassment to you?
Or if by harassment you mean that I don't wish to remove an ontopic post that I made BEFORE you asked me to not quote you... well, that's again a bit of a subjective take from you as to what counts as harassment to say the least.
Funny the drama over my person when I wasn't even aware of it at all. It feels like being in highschool again or something.
Last edited by Hope; 06-06-2017 at 08:35 PM.
It's a little bit funny how you can say these lines one after another while not being able to see the irony in it.Funny the drama over my person when I wasn't even aware of it all. It feels like being in highschool or something.
You and I don't have a conflict, you are reading too much into it, so don't misunderstand me and don't think so high of yourself. I just don't like to bear with unimportant, uninteresting and immature people (imo obviously).
If you're wondering, I don't think anybody reading (bystanders) ascribed any responsibility or fault to you, for any of this. As for the last comment on not talking to vs. not quoting, it's something that could've been easy to mix up in one's mind, not that this would've been any of your fault either.You've quoted me without using quotes (genius), and you talk about me and what I've said to you (several times, kind of accusing me with the rest of the forum, victim role or just 5 yrs old?) in each time that you see an opportunity, and of course, lying, since I didn't even asked you to stop talking to me, I've asked you to stop quoting me, its basic reading comprehension.
I'm not convinced that that's the case. It's my 1D Fi and Ni interpretation against your 1D Fe and Ne interpretation here though.That aside, Squark seems a nice person
It was probably a lot of misunderstanding on both the parts of Myst and Squark and neither wanting to back down on their stances.
Thanks for coming by to clear some of it up and making your post Slugabed.
This a socionics forum... people come here (some of them) to do socionics. So if they're quoting you and trying to type you / expecting you to engage in discussion related to socionics, that is something you should expect to happen and they have every right to do that. It's part of practicing socionics to type everyone you see and to engage in arguments about socionics. If that bothers you than you should probably go to another forum honestly. I guess you can whine about it and hope the person stops but they really don't have to.
@Slugabed - Since you mentioned me, I will respond to your post once then go back to the no-communication rule. That's fair that way. If you want me to not talk to you then don't talk to me, fair enough? Anyway, the below stuff is just for clarification.
There's a difference between quoting and discussing something, and badgering. A pretty huge difference.
Originally just misunderstandings yes but she made it personal in a bad way and I didn't like that. :shrug
I dunno what qualifies as badgering for you really, not everyone seems to see this the same way... not being a mindreader the best I can do is comply with fair, rational, sensible requests. So yeah, apparently a mod moved the offtopic posts from the other thread so that saved me some work, but I did not find it a rational request to move an ontopic post that I made before we made the agreement on not quoting you at all. However. You are free to respond with some logical argument to it or you can leave it alone. I don't need you to respond to it, no problem. No pressuring towards that. So relax.
(Clarification: if you do respond to it in the ISTj rules thread, I will view that as temporarily removing the no-communication rule between us for threads outside of your type thread. Just making this clear. As a fair rule. Same as with Slugabed: if you don't want me to quote/mention you, you don't quote/mention me either.)
Myst, this is a pattern with you that multiple people have pointed out. If you don't actually realize what you're doing, and why it is not a good idea to be doing such, that is very serious.
That's just socionics... Socionics is insanity... if you introduce any cognitive dissonance into the mind of someone who's really practicing socionics they will reengage and argue in every possible way until the dissonance is resolved. It is like an autistic power struggle that never ends.
Deltas tend to not like the Ti, sure.
I dunno what you are talking about otherwise.
If someone can't take some logical discussion or even a "fight" (with logical and fair rules, no personal shit in it) then just don't engage with me, fine.
So if someone wants me to stop quoting them, I will as long as they also don't direct communication at me.
The topic of cognitive dissonance is pretty interesting.
Otoh I don't mind trying to take new data in and reprocess to see a better understanding.
Now with a topic as complex as people's working, that's a never-ending process
I personally don't see a problem with that.
And yeah, the topic is also interesting because I guess you wanted to highlight an issue with the Socionics model. Yah there are some issues with it... one has to disentangle those. As a result, I kinda moved on from the model (very recently), as far as actual use of most of its principles as specifically existing in the model's logical context. Type at best is some descriptive collection of trends of certain aspects of info processing. Type can be valid as far as such trends exist but you absolutely cannot draw any conclusion about a person or a situation from these trends, whatsoever, beyond just describing someone. Put in another way, the model contains almost nothing about the actual mechanisms of the mind's working. Yet it seems to get at some interesting bits about people that seem pretty valid observations of some patterns. And to me that in Socionics gave value.
Ok. My criticism is more that people have vastly different interpretations of socionics because it is so abstract... an ISTj to you is not an ISTj to Slug or Squark or myself... and there is no clear way of agreeing on what an ISTj even IS, because ultimately it IS NOT anything. But this leads to scenarios like I described where you badger someone incessantly, restating your perspective.... they repeat their perspective back to you. You get nowhere (because there is no clear answer). The process repeats and over time you drive yourself insane. That's basically socionics. And I do recommend everyone FORGET that socionics exists but I understand that I'm on a socionics forum so I don't expect that to happen...
It's more then just deltas, and their problems don 't have anything to do with Ti. There are a lot of other Ti egos on here who haven't and aren't rubbing people the wrong way like you are. If "deltas", or more accurately people with no discernible type pattern, are having problems with the way you communicate and are fine communicating with other Ti egos, maybe the problem is with you.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
To be clearThis had nothing to do with deduction, had much more to do with not being interested in guessing by reading back his posts to see if he maybe typo'd something or whatever.
Except you keep doing it.
Ti ain't an issue on his end nor my end. Issue is on your end.
I may rub you the wrong way, doesn't mean I rub many people the wrong way... I explicitly get along well with quite a few people on here. End of story
Well, my take was always that that type is about information processing aspects (and then there'd be some tentative links from that to some other aspects of the mind/brain). Which to me does have meaning, and it should be possible to investigate more closely in a scientific way. I'm moving beyond that take too by now though, Socionics's model is a bit too narrow about that aspect too and definitely got some of the principles wrong and the tentative links aren't very useful in the way Socionics puts them. (I can use them better in a way if I move outside Socionics's model tho'. Using other cognitive and other psychology models as well btw... I recommend that to everyone who's seriously interested in the cognitive aspect of the Socionics model.)
How to get somewhere with someone who has a different perspective - IMO as soon as it's clear that you two are using a very different interpretation, you have to figure out a bit more closely as to what their understanding is like. I can't really do that without asking questions from the person on it, but I find it useful once I figured that out about the talking partner.
She's never going to own up to it. She also was talking about a 50/50 split of people typing her SLE/LSI, meanwhile there's a thread with the overwhelming majority (not even close to 50/50) typing her SLE. Even with visible evidence she tries to rationalize her way out of it. Anyone that doesn't like her is delta, people who have known her type her LSI, etc etc. Obvious fallacious arguments. Ti lead, what a joke.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
Now don't lie lol.
The fact didn't arrive to your little brain just yet that that thread is VERY OLD? From when I was new on the forum.
Ask the people from that thread if they all still type me SLE. Nope many of them don't.
Never said that anyone who doesn't like me is delta. Look up the meaning of the word "tend to" before you misinterpret everything. And the meaning of "not liking Ti" differs from disliking me personally.
But I don't care what you think lol. I'm only correcting it where you are bs'ing about the facts.
To be clear, that's called deduction, and you failed at it.To be clear
Do you know the meaning of "fail"? I did not go back and read the posts so there was nothing to fail at. Bye troll
Yes, I never said you didn't get along with 'quite a few people'. It's quite obvious who you get along with given the people you whined to about this discussion and came in to defend you. You are problematic in that a noticeable group of people have taken issue with you and the way you argue. The fact that people complained about you in threads on this forum means you rub people way. You do rub me the wronb way, but it has nothing to do with Ti. It has to do with the dishonest way you argue.I may rub you the wrong way, doesn't mean I rub many people the wrong way... I explicitly get along well with quite a few people on here. End of story
.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
You hearing impaired?Do you know the meaning of "fail"? I did not go back and read the posts so there was nothing to fail at. Bye troll
The "noticeable" group consists of two trolls (you and Jeremy) and squark and another person who btw handled the disagreement much more maturely than squark... Lol stop making a fool of yourself. And the projection in your last sentence, thanks for making my day, I had to laugh out loud.
You eyesight impaired?
Nope. Answer the question.
You don't know what a fact is. A fact is that the majority of people in that type thread that responded typed you as SLE. That is evidence for an overwhelming majority who bothered to type you as seeing you as SLE. Bsing is 'but that thread was very old'. Many of the people who posted in that thread don't even post anymore, so why would their opinions change? You missed my initial point. People don't have a problem with your Ti. You don't have anything resembling Ti to have a problem with. People have problems with pushiness, combativeness, and persistency which, as Slugabed so aptly said, looks obsessive compulsive. If it isn't just Deltas, then don't call attention to Deltas. That frames the conversation as if it's Delta specific, whether or not you intend to do that. And this is obviously not the case as you just admitted, so why continue to hold on to the rationalization that it has to do with Ti.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
That's all the people you can remember? It's obvious that you don't care about how you affect other people, if thats the case. There is a sizable group of people, though since evidence doesn't work well with you, it would be rather useless to compile a list. Here's a question: when you look at that typing thread, do you imagine them typing you as LSI when you read it?
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
Uhm...
Yeah, you're (intellectually) dishonest in arguments with others.
"That's all the people you can remember?" <-- Being inflammatory
"It's obvious that you don't care about how you affect other people, if that's the case." <-- False assumption, plus you're being inflammatory again..
"There is a sizable group of people" <-- Riiiight ... care to provide evidence?
"though since evidence doesn't work well with you, it would be rather useless to compile a list." <-- Oh okay, so you're absolving yourself of the responsibility of supporting your own comments, conveniently... and trying to twist people's perceptions, AND being inflammatory again with the underlined.
You are either a very bad liar (re: being a troll) or a very very stupid, unaware person who is so idiotic and inflammatory that he would be regarded a troll anyway even if this is all unintentional.
No (as in, this is the answer to it).
Your fact is outdated. I told you how to get UP TO DATE facts, darling... but no, you keep using a conclusion based on outdated facts even after having been told that they are outdated. If you don't believe me on that then go and do it if you want, ask those people who posted years ago in that thread. A lot of people from there still post on the forum.
It does have to do with Ti in terms of thinking and I'm sure there are nonsocionics factors to it as to everything else.
How is it a rationalization to associate it with Ti? It's just an observation. Beyond that, I do accept not everyone likes me the way I am, and so what?
If someone has a problem, they can tell me and ask me to change this or that and if it's a fair and sensible thing that they are asking then I'm happy to.
Lol., it's not a sizable group of people so you cannot compile such a list. Such a nice cop-out there from you.
As for the last question, I don't know what you mean by imagining them typing me as LSI. It's not imagination, it's what they actually told me after I spent more time on the forum.
Again, feel free to type me SLE or LSE or whatever you want to type me.
Why do you keep trying to call people stupid when you post such weak logical cases?
Any other impairments or disabilities?
Think about the metaness of this question, and there you'll find your answer. Fin.
That part is obvious. What isn't obvious is why you are only capable of very weak Ti-, buried under emotional responses, and call yourself SLE. Do you actually use any constructive logic whatsoever?
These two are obvious trolls.
Jeremy has asked Myst if she has physical or mental disabilities, so he's irredeemable already.
Then Slade is being extremely intellectually manipulative/dishonest/trolly, while claiming that others are being that instead, which is basically either severe dishonesty or a miracle of god of a case on projection, denial, and inability to self-reflect.
The assertions Slade's made here are logically unsound from every direction:
"You don't know what a fact is" <-- Just inflammation
"A fact is that the majority of people in that type thread that responded typed you as SLE." <-- Can't know if that's true since you didn't post a tally
"That is evidence for an overwhelming majority who bothered to type you as seeing you as SLE." <-- That's not evidence lol, that's straight up illogical, false conclusion
"Bsing is 'but that thread was very old'. Many of the people who posted in that thread don't even post anymore, so why would their opinions change?" <-- They could change if they knew her for longer, which was her entire point of saying that. It's not bsing. It's bsing to call that bsing.
Finally re: Jeremy:
"That part is obvious."Lmao, I was calling you an idiot in my post to you. So that's obvious to you too? Great.
It's obvious that you overestimate your logical abilities, yes."You don't know what a fact is" <-- Just inflammation
"A fact is that the majority of people in that type thread that responded typed you as SLE." <-- Can't know if that's true since you didn't post a tally
"That is evidence for an overwhelming majority who bothered to type you as seeing you as SLE." <-- That's not evidence lol, that's straight up illogical, false conclusion
"Bsing is 'but that thread was very old'. Many of the people who posted in that thread don't even post anymore, so why would their opinions change?" <-- They could change if they knew her for longer, which was her entire point of saying that. It's not bsing. It's bsing to call that bsing.
Finally re: Jeremy:
"That part is obvious."
At what part is an SLE described as being an individual who utilizes verbal and emotional attacks online? There is nothing physical about such. At what point is the SLE described as being highly talkative and being engaged in interpersonal communicative discourse?
You have Fi- and Ti+ completely reversed. Which is probably why you're set on seeing Trump, a fat, loud-mouthed, defensive wimp (who I support), as an SLE. At no point in your understandings of Socionics has it even crossed your mind that half of the Socion is physically, not verbally, engaged. Tough like Trump, huh?
Aww, thanksI don't get compliments on my
too often like this.
Whatever. SEE is my Supervisor. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.Aww, thanks
But you do owe it to yourself to ask those same questions of yourself. SLE and SEE may both come across as aggressive due to being Se base, but they are such in two vastly different ways. SLE is physical. SEE is verbal / emotional.
Posting Permissions
It all seems really nonsensical if you ask me), change your methods and approaches, so maybe I could consider talking to you again. 