*this was so silly it needed editing*
would you argue with me..?
*this was so silly it needed editing*
Last edited by felafel; 09-16-2011 at 01:19 AM.
I might be wrong, but I always thought that ethics are not easily conveyed through argument when compared to logic.
I suggest cry. Or use some good old fashioned emotional blackmail.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Empathetic listening
( Habit 5 )
Hopefully you two can speak the same language, both literally and metaphorically.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Re: would you argue with me..?
If you can, attempt to keep it to the underlying simplest issues first. Particularly the issues that the other person agrees on. Attempt to stick with ONE issue at a time, getting their agreement ONE issue after ONE issue after ONE issue. Then gradually spoon feed them simple issue by simple issue towards at least grasping your point. (some people cannot focus on one issue at a time though, these people are hard to discuss almost ANYthing with.)Originally Posted by he died with a felafel
in the feelings realm - i need to test me, pretty please
It seems like anything i try to use in explaining my point while arguing with person X about emotional/fairness/(miss)understanding issues...i can not make myself understood.
X's reaction to my tentative explanations might be related to:
A. X is not willing to acknowledge the issue i am bringing up(k, i'm starting with the worst case scenario)
B. X truly can not understand my point....
C. I have not done my HW in making myslef understood.
How would you argue regarding issues related to what i mention above?
Some people respond to this easily "why didn't you just say that in the first place"..hehehe
Some people seem like they are responding and following you, but then all of a sudden they zip right back to one of the previous issues they had agreed on. This type is frustrating. But it's a sign that they have internal conflicts regarding that specific issue or one of the issues presented within it's vicinity (like just before or two after or such..but they're really close).
Some people simply cannot understand something even if it's placed in front of them in black and white, in a chart, nor even with concrete evidence (like an car, a person, a knife, blood on hands, yadda yadda). I still have not figured out how to deal with this kinds of people. Usually, it's best not to waste energy even trying unless the issue at hand is important enough to you. So far, these seem to be guaranteed to fail.
The first two are great for people who actually want to at least grasp your point, even if they don't agree with it.
The last two, well....if the person is actually TRYING to understand what you are saying, what you figure the issue is, that is a good sign. If all you get is confusion though, then it might be best to ask them guiding questions about THEIR view of the issue, this might give you clues as to what you need to cover to help them see your pov.
The worst thing is to have someone who's not even concerned with focusing on the issue itself, cannot pull out of their own emotional/mental turmoil to do so, or will not step out of "if it were me, I'd blah blah blah". If possible, wait; if not possible, do what you gotta do.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
If you are hurt, then you hurting is objective reality. It cannot be NOT acknowledged because it would like not acnkowleding the existence of, say, the sun: completely ridiculous.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
.
.
ISFj
Spit in her face? Punch her? Insult her? Those are the most reasonable suggestions imho.i agree to some extend (and thanks for the support), but it isn't so much that X doesn't want to acknowledge that i was hurt - rather's trying to shift the focus point from me being hurt to X not having doen it intentionally (hence, demeaning the fact that i am, well, hurt.)
me's sad....
what to do? i wouldn't mind in general and let it go, but have noticed a pattern in X' behaviour:that of trying to shift the focal point of the issue we're talking about (esp. when it pertains to emotional fairness & co)
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
.
isn't it obvious?i agree to some extend (and thanks for the support
what to do?
I don't understand why you can't just tell us the issue, exactly as it is. The other day we have this long winded explanation on someone calling you a childish name, but you wouldn't reveal the name. Now we have basically a framework for an argument with no actual words in it, and we're supposed to sort out how you should make sense of it: for anyone here to competently do this is impossible.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote