User Tag List

First 1454626364656674 Last

Results 631 to 640 of 870

  1. #631
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by March View Post
    My making explicit what I thought you meant was a (misguided, in retrospect) attempt to answer that call.
    it was - asking for advice about how to address that very problem, a.k.a. the "are you implying that i... [insert intent]" leap of logic which seems to be the common reaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by March View Post
    Good to know. That wasn't what twigged my 'don't know if serious radar,' so it helps to have your confirmation that I'm just miscalibrated.
    i am curious as to what did.

    Quote Originally Posted by March View Post
    It's like the funhouse mirror or Monster of Frankenstein version of what's going on in me. Most of the parts are there, but the connections are messed up, the relative sizes are wrong, and I don't think it's actually viable. I could try to expand to the regular mirror/regular living human version, sure.
    yes please

    Quote Originally Posted by March View Post
    "Understanding what is, and understanding what useful to express" sounds like you think the latter is unrelated to the former.
    not quite - intuitively my expectation says otherwise, but i thought you where making the point that it isn't, a.k.a. "if my husband cheated i wouldn't call him a cheater but convince him that he is better then that" <- its something i've contemplated as a more strategic approach for goading responsibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by March View Post
    And I'm absolutely convinced that your option A is feasible when you say [...] Even though I also understand you're not feeling too optimistic about that.
    then do it.

    there is nothing forcing you to have only one type-based front in establishing your case, as eilonwy proved, and you have plenty of cases to do so all around: you have werebudgie who's arguments take the format of the emperor new clothes, you have z buck who expressed the firm belief that everyone complaining about INFJs in their lives and comparing patterns among themselves while sharing some of the most vulnerable stories to do so... are just part of a big conspiracy to make her feel bad about herself, done not necessarily by them but by their combined subconscious minds, who are apparently in denial about their entire motivational structure not revolving around the state of how she feels about herself, because - i kid you not - they are the ones suffering from a condition that leads to paranoid delusions in which one explains the behavior of others by large mental schemes centering around themselves (a.k.a. NPD). you have "the state i am in" who firmly believes that saying something by carefully avoiding finding out that it isn't true on the basis that its more emotionally compelling is - in his own words - the truth - who firmly believes relationships exclude causality. all 3 of the above view picking which perspective counts according to what suits them emotionally to both be a right and a reasonable decision - go ahead and confront one of them when ours doesn't. how about the nicer of the bunch (not sarcastic in that statement -they really are the nicer ones), where you have fia and cafe who think those stories and patterns must be provocations for them to defend their friends/themselves from and retaliate, thereby rationalizing the process in which one's response to hearing about someone abandoned mid pregnancy or getting cheated on or loosing their kid or having their house stolen (different people btw) is to attack them (well, "attack back" in their own mind). and that's just the tip of the iceberg selected by recent activity - in total you have more test subjects here then some professional researchers can afford in their budget. you even have the home court advantage in doing it. pick any.

    you want to show an INFJ can be related to honestly and confronted with an image of themselves in contrary to their ego, that Ni self delusional walls can be climbed over.. then do it: confront an INFJ with a mental image contrary to their ego. show me. if confronting INFJs honestly about real life misgivings is humanly possible, then this should be a piece of cake.
    Last edited by Society; 04-07-2014 at 04:50 AM.

  2. #632
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    you have z buck who expressed the firm belief that everyone complaining about INFJs in their lives and comparing patterns among themselves while sharing some of the most vulnerable stories to do so... are just part of a big conspiracy to make her feel bad about herself, done not necessarily by them but by their combined subconscious minds, who are apparently in denial about their entire motivational structure not revolving around the state of how she feels about herself, because - i kid you not - they are the ones suffering from a condition that leads to paranoid delusions in which one explains the behavior of others by large mental schemes centering around themselves (a.k.a. NPD). you have "the state i am in" who firmly believes that saying something by carefully avoiding finding out that it isn't true on the basis that its more emotionally compelling is - in his own words - the truth - who firmly believes relationships exclude causality. all 3 of the above view picking which perspective counts according to what suits them emotionally to both be a right and a reasonable decision - go ahead and confront one of them when ours doesn't. how about the nicer of the bunch (not sarcastic in that statement -they really are the nicer ones), where you have fia and cafe who think those stories and patterns must be provocations for them to defend their friends/themselves from and retaliate, thereby rationalizing the process in which one's response to hearing about someone abandoned mid pregnancy or getting cheated on or loosing their kid or having their house stolen (different people btw) is to attack them (well, "attack back" in their own mind). and that's just the tip of the iceberg selected by recent activity - in total you have more test subjects here then some professional researchers can afford in their budget. you even have the home court advantage in doing it. pick any.
    I usually don't waste time reading your posts, but someone gave me a heads up that you mentioned me specifically. Could you provide a link to one of these posts where I directly accuse any member here of having NPD? Because I don't recall saying this. Thanks.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  3. #633
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    Could you provide a link to one of these posts where I directly accuse any member here of having NPD? Because I don't recall saying this. Thanks.
    yea, this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    it's a common tendency of narcissists though to make this accusation
    ..the accusation which just happens to fall in line with what you expressed perceiving yourself as being accused of by the apposing side in that thread.

    that's totally not accusing the particular people you where arguing with of being narcissists, just like me saying that someone pretending to not talk about people by referancing contextually describing where she stands in regards to whatever opinions they expressed is an incredibly immature and unhealthy example of any type wouldn't be me talking about you, or if i say that everyone who expresses your opinion must be a [insert diagnosis / cursing / and other assortments of bullshit] to avoid confront your opinions directly. much like how you don't talk to peacebaby or anyone else you "don't talk too".... or "increasing" the standard of conversation to this:

    ...if i applied your logic of how you judge intent in others i'd have to think your life goal is to make my eyes roll.

    also -as nice as indulging your BS here was - i'm not playing peekabo with you:
    if you want to engage in meaningful conversation - as skeptical as i am of your capacity to do so - i'd consider it.
    but you "not talking" only to take this sort of tactical break on your own terms isn't going to work.
    so as long as that BS goes on, this is last time i am going to answer any of your questions.

    for future reference:
    your time is far better invested as serving discussions about the unhealthy extremes of your type as a living anecdote - you are welcomed to not waste it on me.

  4. #634
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    yea, this:

    ..the accusation which just happens to fall in line with what you expressed perception of yourself as being accused of by the apposing side in that thread.

    that's totally not accusing the particular people you where arguing with of being narcissists, just like me saying that someone pretending to not talk about people by referancing contextually describing where she stands in regards to whatever opinions they expressed is an incredibly immature and unhealthy example of any type wouldn't be me talking about you, or if i say that everyone who expresses your opinion must be a [insert diagnosis / cursing / and other assortments of bullshit] to avoid confront your opinions directly. much like how you don't talk to peacebaby or anyone else you "don't talk too".... or "increasing" the standard of conversation to this:

    ...if i applied your logic of how you judge intent in others i'd have to think your life goal is to make my eyes roll.

    also -as nice as indulging your BS here was - i'm not playing peekabo with you:
    if you want to engage in meaningful conversation - as skeptical as i am of your capacity to do so - i'd consider it.
    but you "not talking" only to take this sort of tactical break on your own terms isn't going to work.
    so as long as that BS goes on, this is last time i am going to answer any of your questions.

    for future reference:
    your time is far better invested as serving discussions about the unhealthy extremes of your type as a living anecdote - you are welcomed to not waste it on me.
    Okay, I didn't read all the stuff underneath the quote, all I read is a quote didn't actually contain me accusing someone of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder. And since it didn't (and also because I haven't actually accused anyone here of having it), I'll take it somewhere in this post you admitted that what you said in the previous post- right after "I kid you not"- isn't actually true.



    As an aside to anyone else: when people on your ignore list quote you, it no longer gives you notification. Woo-hoo!
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  5. #635
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,367

    Default

    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    ~ Elbert Hubbard

    Music provides one of the clearest examples of a much deeper relation between mathematics and human experience.

  6. #636
    I want my account deleted
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    401

    Default Type talk as objectification - "normal" on this site, but not the only way to do it

    This thread has helped to bring into my consciousness how very toxic I find some of the energy and discussion on this site. There are various threads and streams and patterns in this - some of which I don't have words for and some of which I do.

    One of the problems I see underlying the toxicity on this site is a persistent use and acceptance of type talk as a form of objectification.

    Stepping back for a minute: The reason MBTI and cognitive process conceptual language/framework is a positive resource in my relationship with my INFP partner is that we just don't look at each other as objectified "INFJ representative" and "INFP representative." Instead, we look at each other as actual people who have as part of our makeup specific ways of processing information. So I don't relate to my partner as "the INFP" and she doesn't relate to me as "the INFJ" - we relate to each other as multifacted layered human beings. For us, the purpose of talking about our differences in cognitive processes is as a tool to understand each other better - not as a way to reduce each other into two-dimensional type objects. For us, our differing cognitive processes are part of a larger whole being (and no, I don't mean "there's enneagram etc also!" I mean actual specific multilayered human beings, with all that such a thing actually means for human beings in respectful non-objectifying connection). The same is true with me and my ENTP friend.

    In sharp contrast: On this site, people regularly relate to each other as two-dimensional representatives of type. Persistently, people make objects of each other in this way - objects they then seek to use for various purposes. This is a pattern of casual, persistent, and very often unremarked-upon dehumanization. From what I can see, this two-dimensional/objectifying/dehumanizing use of type/cognitive function talk is embedded so deeply in the group culture here that it appears as a relatively normal and unremarkable way to relate to other people.

    In such a context, statements such as this can actually be part of what appears to be, by group cultural standards, normal and reasonable interaction between people:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    for future reference:
    your time is far better invested as serving discussions about the unhealthy extremes of your type as a living anecdote - you are welcomed to not waste it on me.
    (Though this is a particularly explicit example, it is by no means the only one. Though a lot of the site's pattern of type-based objectification is more subtle than this.)

    But outside of this site and contexts like it, outside of the invisible norms and assumptions here, my experience suggests that there are in fact some non-objectifying and non-dehumanizing ways to use the MBTI/cognitive process language. I have had long(ish)-term, persistent real life experience with approaches that are respectful, non-objectifying, non-dehumanizing and really valuable for human interaction.

    So from my vantage point: While type-based objectification, dehumanization and use is too often the unremarked norm on this site (this thread is one among many displaying it in a variety of ways), such use of these concepts really isn't the only possible approach to using these concepts in interaction with others. Type-based objectification and use just seems normal and is so persistent in this environment because it is, somehow, embedded in invisible group norms of interaction between participants.

  7. #637
    Vulnerability Eilonwy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sp/so
    Posts
    6,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Werebudgie View Post
    This thread has helped to bring into my consciousness how very toxic I find some of the energy and discussion on this site. There are various threads and streams and patterns in this - some of which I don't have words for and some of which I do.

    One of the problems I see underlying the toxicity on this site is a persistent use and acceptance of type talk as a form of objectification.

    Stepping back for a minute: The reason MBTI and cognitive process conceptual language/framework is a positive resource in my relationship with my INFP partner is that we just don't look at each other as objectified "INFJ representative" and "INFP representative." Instead, we look at each other as actual people who have as part of our makeup specific ways of processing information. So I don't relate to my partner as "the INFP" and she doesn't relate to me as "the INFJ" - we relate to each other as multifacted layered human beings. For us, the purpose of talking about our differences in cognitive processes is as a tool to understand each other better - not as a way to reduce each other into two-dimensional type objects. For us, our differing cognitive processes are part of a larger whole being (and no, I don't mean "there's enneagram etc also!" I mean actual specific multilayered human beings, with all that such a thing actually means for human beings in respectful non-objectifying connection). The same is true with me and my ENTP friend.

    In sharp contrast: On this site, people regularly relate to each other as two-dimensional representatives of type. Persistently, people make objects of each other in this way - objects they then seek to use for various purposes. This is a pattern of casual, persistent, and very often unremarked-upon dehumanization. From what I can see, this two-dimensional/objectifying/dehumanizing use of type/cognitive function talk is embedded so deeply in the group culture here that it appears as a relatively normal and unremarkable way to relate to other people.

    In such a context, statements such as this can actually be part of what appears to be, by group cultural standards, normal and reasonable interaction between people:

    Originally Posted by Mane

    for future reference:
    your time is far better invested as serving discussions about the unhealthy extremes of your type as a living anecdote - you are welcomed to not waste it on me.

    (Though this is a particularly explicit example, it is by no means the only one. Though a lot of the site's pattern of type-based objectification is more subtle than this.)

    But outside of this site and contexts like it, outside of the invisible norms and assumptions here, my experience suggests that there are in fact some non-objectifying and non-dehumanizing ways to use the MBTI/cognitive process language. I have had long(ish)-term, persistent real life experience with approaches that are respectful, non-objectifying, non-dehumanizing and really valuable for human interaction.

    So from my vantage point: While type-based objectification, dehumanization and use is too often the unremarked norm on this site (this thread is one among many displaying it in a variety of ways), such use of these concepts really isn't the only possible approach to using these concepts in interaction with others. Type-based objectification and use just seems normal and is so persistent in this environment because it is, somehow, embedded in invisible group norms of interaction between participants.
    Am I correct in assuming that you are including all types as participating in type-based objectification? Including the INFJs on this site? Or is @Mane your only example? Because, so far, I've only seen you cite Mane and @PeaceBaby as examples. Admittedly, I haven't read every single one of your posts, so I might have missed other people you've used as examples. What would make your argument more convincing to me is if you cited quotes from people you didn't appear to have pov issues with.

    ETA: Since you've said that type-based objectification isn't the only approach, I'd be interested in some examples of the other approaches you have in mind. Otherwise I see your post as a complaint and not a suggestion of how to improve.
    Johari / Nohari

    “That we are capable only of being what we are remains our unforgivable sin.” ― Gene Wolfe

    reminder to self: "That YOU that you are so proud of is a story woven together by your interpreter module to account for as much of your behavior as it can incorporate, and it denies or rationalizes the rest." "Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain" by Michael S. Gazzaniga

  8. #638
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Werebudgie View Post
    In sharp contrast: On this site, people regularly relate to each other as two-dimensional representatives of type. Persistently, people make objects of each other in this way - objects they then seek to use for various purposes.
    is that supposed to be a sharp contrast with these:

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    i don't know if what you're saying is that only "common sense implications" are real or worthy of consideration. i feel a judgmental tone, but i don't really see your point or your needs, so it's difficult to really do anything with this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    (I believe, for many of us) It isn’t about 'realizing' there are other points of view out there, that much is obviously true. It’s about figuring out which ones to invest in. Just because other points of view exist doesn’t mean it’s worth investing in them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Werebudgie View Post
    I wonder how often it is that people whose POV we decide isn't worth investing in don't want to accept that that is the actual situation, so generalize it into "You need to understand there are other POVs."
    ?

    whether they are able to see themselves in that manner or not, they are speaking up for your right to treat other perspectives as tv channels to turn off for their own entertainment, toys to disregard when they don't suit them. that is as objectifying for the people who's perspectives they choose to include only because the perspective serves them no less then it is to the people who's perspective is longer of use to them - even if you treat your toys nicely while your playing with them, they are still at the end of the day your toys, not people.

    now, that the 3 above happen to be the same type of cognitive processing might be a coincidence... there's just a lot of accumulative coincidences to account for.

  9. #639
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Werebudgie View Post
    This thread has helped to bring into my consciousness how very toxic I find some of the energy and discussion on this site. There are various threads and streams and patterns in this - some of which I don't have words for and some of which I do.
    This whole post: this is all about you. Think of your interactions with anyone here as a mirror. All I am is a mirror to your energy, what you bring to this site, so these words, they are all about a projection of YOUR interior state. Not about anyone else here. Not my interior state.

    The energy I feel emanating from you is scornful, negative, colored with a sense of condescending superiority in many realms. You aggressively avoid interacting with anyone who disagrees with your rigid perspectives and you do not much care that behind these 2 dimensional words on a screen are real living, breathing, hurting, loving people. The dehumanizing I see comes ... from you. The disrespect I see ... you own it.

    That is what I see in YOU. There's more, but you're not in a place to hear it. Still, I palpably feel your hurting spaces. I feel you as a real 3 dimensional human being. I send you hugs for that, but until you drop your walls in this place I am afraid you will not find what you seek here.

    Think of it another way: try to realize that what you are seeing in these dynamics is a remarkable privilege. The fact that you interpret the dynamics the way you do is illogical, is it not? That this site is populated with type objectifiers? What is more probable, the shallow conclusions you're selling or mine, that we are all human and showing 3-d sides of ourselves that never usually see the light of day? Open your mind, werebudgie ... or maybe more accurately, your heart.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eilonwy View Post
    What would make your argument more convincing to me is if you cited quotes from people you didn't appear to have pov issues with.
    This is pure gold. werebudgie, you should think very long and hard about this one.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  10. #640
    Vulnerability Eilonwy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sp/so
    Posts
    6,172

    Default

    Some more of my two cents:

    What I was starting to see was an actual productive conversation between @March and @Mane. imo, it's the first really productive, neutral discussion about a highly charged subject that I've seen on this forum. I, for one, would like to see what results from it, no matter what results from it.


    As I see it, this is what's being discussed:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    (essentially: when confronting an INFJ, to what extent can i just be honest and allow out relating to things the way i see them vs. just nod and smile and take in whatever narrative makes them feel better). i'll be blunt that right now i tend to believe the later, which is problematic, because i don't see how i could get very good at meeting those requirements.
    and this is an example of the bolded in the first quote--how Mane honestly sees things:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    then do it.

    there is nothing forcing you to have only one type-based front in establishing your case, as eilonwy proved, and you have plenty of cases to do so all around: you have werebudgie who's arguments take the format of the emperor new clothes, you have z buck who expressed the firm belief that everyone complaining about INFJs in their lives and comparing patterns among themselves while sharing some of the most vulnerable stories to do so... are just part of a big conspiracy to make her feel bad about herself, done not necessarily by them but by their combined subconscious minds, who are apparently in denial about their entire motivational structure not revolving around the state of how she feels about herself, because - i kid you not - they are the ones suffering from a condition that leads to paranoid delusions in which one explains the behavior of others by large mental schemes centering around themselves (a.k.a. NPD). you have "the state i am in" who firmly believes that saying something by carefully avoiding finding out that it isn't true on the basis that its more emotionally compelling is - in his own words - the truth - who firmly believes relationships exclude causality. all 3 of the above view picking which perspective counts according to what suits them emotionally to both be a right and a reasonable decision - go ahead and confront one of them when ours doesn't. how about the nicer of the bunch (not sarcastic in that statement -they really are the nicer ones), where you have fia and cafe who think those stories and patterns must be provocations for them to defend their friends/themselves from and retaliate, thereby rationalizing the process in which one's response to hearing about someone abandoned mid pregnancy or getting cheated on or loosing their kid or having their house stolen (different people btw) is to attack them (well, "attack back" in their own mind). and that's just the tip of the iceberg selected by recent activity - in total you have more test subjects here then some professional researchers can afford in their budget. you even have the home court advantage in doing it. pick any.

    you want to show an INFJ can be related to honestly and confronted with an image of themselves in contrary to their ego, that Ni self delusional walls can be climbed over.. then do it: confront an INFJ with a mental image contrary to their ego. show me. if confronting INFJs honestly about real life misgivings is humanly possible, then this should be a piece of cake.

    So, I'm very interested in if March still stands by this:
    Quote Originally Posted by March View Post
    And I'm absolutely convinced that your option A is feasible when you say
    Originally Posted by Mane
    (essentially: when confronting an INFJ, to what extent can i just be honest and allow out relating to things the way i see them vs. just nod and smile and take in whatever narrative makes them feel better).
    Even though I also understand you're not feeling too optimistic about that.
    Johari / Nohari

    “That we are capable only of being what we are remains our unforgivable sin.” ― Gene Wolfe

    reminder to self: "That YOU that you are so proud of is a story woven together by your interpreter module to account for as much of your behavior as it can incorporate, and it denies or rationalizes the rest." "Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain" by Michael S. Gazzaniga

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] INFJ's - What is your job?
    By ASublett in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 07-14-2013, 06:02 PM
  2. [INFJ] An INFJ not sympathizing...is it normal?
    By Black Hole Sun in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-20-2012, 10:45 PM
  3. [INFJ] INFJ and Love - Is not having it an issue that needs fixing?
    By kccrush in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-08-2010, 07:16 AM
  4. [INFJ] INFJ -Your heart is on your sleeve
    By harmonyizmine in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 11:46 PM
  5. [ENTP] Who is the best partner in crime for ENTP women?
    By BlahBlahNounBlah in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 11-28-2009, 09:32 AM

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