User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 114

  1. #51
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    Can you provide an example of the above? Would this be like the baby ENTPs who go around pushing buttons perhaps? There was a great deal of that last year...I guess I never realized the underlying motive was to destabilize others. From my perspective emotional destablization of others makes no sense at all. If the point of a discussion is to come closer to an objective notion of truth, it makes no sense to evoke emotional responses intentionally as then the feedback received on the objective idea is more or less gibberish.

    What I have noticed more this year was a more pervasive trend towards more subtle personal attacks such as "If you believe that you must be [insert insult]". Rather than discuss the actual idea being proposed and have a back and forth discussion of facts/ideas about the topic under discussion, the whole convo would shift to a discussion of individuals having flawed characters. It was really quite odd and totally irrational to observe.
    Your second paragraph is a good example of what I was describing about discussions shifting from ideas to emotional/social dialog. Sometimes it can be more complex and intertwined still using the guise of an idea exchange, but really about social dominance. I didn't have a specific example in mind, but just an overall impression mostly through observation and with a little experience in posting online for a decade. I wasn't particularly talking about this site, but was including it.

    American/popular culture idolizes this sort of communication seen in Simon Cowell from "American Idol" to "House M.D." to all the political talking heads. My impression is that people see it as cutting through all the bullshit without realizing it is bullshit. Those extreme over-statements are not rational and they are not about ideas or truth. They are meant to manipulate people with fear and humiliation. It is an extension of our marketing culture. It isn't the quality of the idea or product, it is how forcefully it is imposed on people. The truth is stronger than any person or any set of words. It can't be changed, so it doesn't need the aid of manipulation to convey it. Maybe that is too idealistic in our over-marketed, manipulated society, but I've had it with the other approach. I won't imitate it, buy into it, admire it, or be convinced by it.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    It is an extension of our marketing culture
    Tell me more about this, I'm interested in this.

  3. #53
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    Your second paragraph is a good example of what I was describing about discussions shifting from ideas to emotional/social dialog. Sometimes it can be more complex and intertwined still using the guise of an idea exchange, but really about social dominance. I didn't have a specific example in mind, but just an overall impression mostly through observation and with a little experience in posting online for a decade. I wasn't particularly talking about this site, but was including it.

    American/popular culture idolizes this sort of communication seen in Simon Cowell from "American Idol" to "House M.D." to all the political talking heads. My impression is that people see it as cutting through all the bullshit without realizing it is bullshit. Those extreme over-statements are not rational and they are not about ideas or truth. They are meant to manipulate people with fear and humiliation. It is an extension of our marketing culture. It isn't the quality of the idea or product, it is how forcefully it is imposed on people. The truth is stronger than any person or any set of words. It can't be changed, so it doesn't need the aid of manipulation to convey it. Maybe that is too idealistic in our over-marketed, manipulated society, but I've had it with the other approach. I won't imitate it, buy into it, admire it, or be convinced by it.
    I dont overtly disagree with the suggestion of it being a method of social dominance, although I think there is value in a finer deliniation of simply direct vs dominating or abusive conversation....but are the people who do it actually consciously aware of any attempt to dominate others to gain social status? Social dominance is also a natural part of any human group as leadership-does that make social dominance itself "bad", or is it the method of control via fear itself which is bad?

  4. #54
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    I dont overtly disagree with the suggestion of it being a method of social dominance, although I think there is value in a finer deliniation of simply direct vs dominating or abusive conversation....but are the people who do it actually consciously aware of any attempt to dominate others to gain social status? Social dominance is also a natural part of any human group as leadership-does that make social dominance itself "bad", or is it the method of control via fear itself which is bad?
    As a disclaimer, discussing this in the abstract will tend to have each reader provide their own specific examples which could all be different, so there is greater possibility of misreading, but overall I think it is better to keep it abstract.

    There are two things I was addressing, one is calling out when manipulation based on fear or humiliation is being used to make a point instead of information and an actual exchange of ideas. I would say it is destructive for people to communicate in that way. That exists on a continuum, so there are varying degrees of it. The worst examples i would say are in the media and then people tend to copy that in their own discussions.

    As far as a motivation for being socially dominant, that isn't necessarily destructive in and of itself, because you are right that it is natural for social groups to have individuals with different levels of power. The problems is that it can be a false front for trying to discuss ideas to discover "truth". Arguments tend to be about two people who are both determined to be right who fight it out to see who can establish their view through social means rather than reasoning. A debate I understand to be an exchange of ideas where personal ego investment in being right would not be relevant, at least ideally. Perhaps human beings can't achieve that level of pure ideas, but are always invested in their social outcomes.

    It is possible to have direct, even blunt exchange of ideas without name-calling or bringing into focus anything personal about the other person except perhaps challenging specific language use, but not extending that into personal judgment. In that environment conceding a position is not equivalent to submitting to someone's anger and judgment. It is nothing more or less than conceding an idea.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  5. #55
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    I love Annwn's posts above.

    I don't think it's always necessarily a bad thing when people start trading barbs. Different people have different thicknesses of skin for it. I mean it’s one thing when there seems to be mutual camaraderie. When people only dish out to those who can take it, and they’re willing to take it themselves- I even find it entertaining at times, because I can trust that no one is getting hurt. I do know people can be playful with each other like this.

    But it often seems clear (at least to others watching) there are some people who regularly cross the line in the way Annwn has described, using humiliation and fear to appear strong (since the ability to condescend in an especially clever manner may be perceived as a strength).
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  6. #56
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    There are two things I was addressing, one is calling out when manipulation based on fear or humiliation is being used to make a point instead of information and an actual exchange of ideas. I would say it is destructive for people to communicate in that way. That exists on a continuum, so there are varying degrees of it. The worst examples i would say are in the media and then people tend to copy that in their own discussions.
    Do the individuals inflicting the fear and humiliation realize the impact their words are having? Do they always actually intend this to be the result? How does one weigh the variance of sensitivity levels of the audiance into the communication equation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    It is possible to have direct, even blunt exchange of ideas without name-calling or bringing into focus anything personal about the other person except perhaps challenging specific language use, but not extending that into personal judgment. In that environment conceding a position is not equivalent to submitting to someone's anger and judgment. It is nothing more or less than conceding an idea.
    The bolded section is heavenly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    I love Annwn's posts above.

    I don't think it's always necessarily a bad thing when people start trading barbs. Different people have different thicknesses of skin for it. I mean it’s one thing when there seems to be mutual camaraderie. When people only dish out to those who can take it, and they’re willing to take it themselves- I even find it entertaining at times, because I can trust that no one is getting hurt. I do know people can be playful with each other like this.

    But it often seems clear (at least to others watching) there are some people who regularly cross the line in the way Annwn has described, using humiliation and fear to appear strong (since the ability to condescend in an especially clever manner may be perceived as a strength).
    I concur on the concept of trading barbs-it can actually be great fun. Oddly though I am almost of opposite thought regarding the line in bold-It is purely visceral but I find condescending offhand remarks to be cowardly and weak-not strong. In my mind it is like they were afraid to directly stand up, thus instead were indirectly nasty-it signifies weakness and fear, rather than strength. That is really odd to be honest...

  7. #57
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    As far as a motivation for being socially dominant, that isn't necessarily destructive in and of itself, because you are right that it is natural for social groups to have individuals with different levels of power. The problems is that it can be a false front for trying to discuss ideas to discover "truth". Arguments tend to be about two people who are both determined to be right who fight it out to see who can establish their view through social means rather than reasoning. A debate I understand to be an exchange of ideas where personal ego investment in being right would not be relevant, at least ideally. Perhaps human beings can't achieve that level of pure ideas, but are always invested in their social outcomes.
    .
    I pulled "reasoning" and "personal ego investment" as two terms of great interest as I suspect they often come into play in debates/arguments seen here. I believe that reasoning can be done via values as well as logic but that this is an area where typological considerations can play a huge role given what each of us considers to be sensitive parts of our personal egos may differ drastically. So in any given debate-even one fully meant to be reasonable-we each are protecting different aspects of our own personal ego and using different sets of tools to reason-when those things collide-suddenly what was meant to be "reasonable debate" becomes threatening and invasive arguments. The value of typology may lie in understanding those differences are present even if painful to navigate at times.

  8. #58
    Une Femme est une femme paperoceans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Posts
    834

    Default

    I hate arguing and ignore it when provoked.
    Between that cigarillo and sticking my finger down my throat to see if I could DT, I feel like puking RN.

    Read my Blog.

  9. #59
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    Do the individuals inflicting the fear and humiliation realize the impact their words are having? Do they always actually intend this to be the result? How does one weigh the variance of sensitivity levels of the audiance into the communication equation?
    I suspect it happens both ways. I'm also not referring to jesting. I don't know what the motivations always are. To use an impersonal example: when Rush Limbaugh made fun of Michael J. Fox's MS what was his motivation? He was making a personal judgment and assumption by saying it was faked and imitating the physical tremors caused by the disease. I suspect he either felt justified saying it, or did it for ratings which for him is social power.

    When I'm in a debate that goes sour and uses personal insults, I try not to have a set judgment about the person. Sometimes I have felt a judgment, but I try to distance myself and reason through it, but I make mistakes and so know that can happen as well. I find that for passive-aggression or even overt aggression, assuming no ill intent tends to be constructive more often than not. In actual experience I don't know what the motivations are. In speaking broadly it seems reasonable to assume there are harmful motivations at times and obliviousness at other times.

    Communication between people is complicated and often confused, and most every possible scenario takes place. It will never be perfect or clear. By addressing certain destructive dynamics in broad terms and abstractly, people discussing and reading can apply it wherever it makes sense to. I don't think that every scenario where someone gets hurt is based on the same intentions or dynamics, and it is important to make that distinction.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  10. #60
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    I concur on the concept of trading barbs-it can actually be great fun. Oddly though I am almost of opposite thought regarding the line in bold-It is purely visceral but I find condescending offhand remarks to be cowardly and weak-not strong. In my mind it is like they were afraid to directly stand up, thus instead were indirectly nasty-it signifies weakness and fear, rather than strength. That is really odd to be honest...
    I'm certainly not saying I perceive it as a strength, I'm saying it's often perceived as strength by society in general. If it wasn't, as Annwn wrote, House or the other guy (don't know who he is) wouldn't be popular. What's condescending to one person is playful to another, the balance is in knowing the difference. A person may claim they are only being playful with their barbs- but if the person they are antagonizing doesn't see it that way, then it's no longer being playful.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

Similar Threads

  1. Why on earth do so many people interfere with other people's lives?
    By Comeback Girl in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 10-01-2013, 01:11 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-23-2012, 10:13 PM
  3. [NT] Why does so many people fail to get rich?
    By yenom in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 07-26-2009, 09:32 PM
  4. Replies: 135
    Last Post: 07-04-2009, 10:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO