You misunderstood me. I don't expect to find "always" answers.
I'm just coming at this from a very different background than yours. And I'm explaining that. That's all.
Well if he isn't xSTJ - and he types as INTJ - then it would be E1, that sentence.Meh your Social-last talking. The hell is this logic, valaki?
Not sure what your issue was with the sentence.
I wasn't asking about any guarantees. I was simply describing how things are, how I often see them happen.Again, there's no guaranteed. This is all about finding a common denominator -- the whole point of the social "lay of the land" I've been talking about, in terms of networks and alliances, is about finding common ground. If you read those networks -- and the individuals that make them up -- correctly, then it's easy to cater to the largest possible majority. It's impossible to make everyone happy (like I said before), so making the majority happy is the highest realistic goal.
I did say that there can be win-win situations. The difference for me is that I don't care to find those simply for the sake of social goals. There is no need to cater to me in this sense honestly.
Also, my original point was about how the preferences of whatever group aren't worth more than your own preferences. (Obviously this applies in case of conflict of preferences.) You didn't address that too much, I suppose you just disagree on that, fine. I mean, clearly you say the majority is what's worth the most. I don't really see it that way.
Every time if your own view is different, siding with the popular opinion does mean giving up your own view. And no, I don't like that.It's only partly relevant. It implies that every time you go along with popular opinion, you're giving up your own agenda.
Convenient for soc-firsts I guessOn the contrary, it's very easy to fall in line when it's convenient for you and move on when it ceases to be.
Me, I don't "fall in line". I just exist the way I exist. Moving on is not hard though, sure.
What kind of strategy are you talking about there? Is it for certain social goals? Or what? Give me some examples.That's where it's important to see the "group" as a whole as being comprised of a massive number of sub-groups and sub-networks. Moving from one sub-group to another as it suits you is often a necessary strategic move. Every individual in a group is a free agent, moving from place to place. Group classification is just one way of handling those individuals without getting overwhelmed by unnecessary detail.
Not necessarily just one such person. But it does happen often that a group opinion gets formed by certain people and the rest just "fall in line" with that - using your own words.The vast majority of social situations are not going to require catering to one socially influential person.
I'm gonna disappoint you then, because my opinions haven't changed at all. I just explained how I see these things. I don't see where I said the "eh, sometimes" sort of stuff. I guess you misinterpreted something, what was it?I'm not trying to make you like any of this -- I'm just showing you that it can, and does, work. Frequently. And since you've gone from "never" to "eh, sometimes", I can tell myself that I've pretty much done my job here.
My experience differs, thus my realism differs from yours. So I see yours as optimistic.It's not optimism, it's realism. Medium-level fuck-ups are significantly more likely than huge ones.