[ENTP] ENTPs how do you stop yourselves being assholes

[digesthisickness]

Can someone summarize what is going on in this thread so I can join in?

do your own homework. it's the only way you'll learn!

edit: well, shit.

 

[Synarch]

do your own homework. it's the only way you'll learn!

edit: well, shit.

*scribbles on report card* digest does not know how to follow directions. Conduct: Unsatisfactory.

 

[digesthisickness]

*scribbles on report card* digest does not know how to follow directions. Conduct: Unsatisfactory.

*digest lives*

 

[CJ99]

Can someone summarize what is going on in this thread so I can join in?

Basicaly i'm asking how other ENTPs stop themselves from being to blunt and nasty which has lead to a debate over how tactful we should be and exactly how honest being tactful is.

Also Jaguar and Qre:us have went into some other debate that i can't be bothered reading cause its full of long posts.

 

[Synarch]

Basicaly i'm asking how other ENTPs stop themselves from being to blunt and nasty which has lead to a debate over how tactful we should be and exactly how honest being tactful is.

Also Jaguar and Qre:us have went into some other debate that i can't be bothered reading cause its full of long posts.

If I may cut through the bullshit:

1. Is it important to be respectful over other people's feelings? Yes.
2. Who decides what is blunt and nasty vs. what is merely clear and concise? I think we must acknowledge that sometimes we are too blunt and nasty. We must differentiate this from when we are merely insensitive. Insensitivity is also our responsibility to a large degree.

 

[digesthisickness]

being tactful and reading your audience in order to actually be productive instead of blocked out and getting nowhere, isn't being fake or dishonest.

it's using your brain.

 

[Synarch]

being tactful and reading your audience in order to actually be productive instead of blocked out, isn't being fake or dishonest.

it's using your brain.

Truth.

 

[CJ99]

True digest. But at times i think people are too tactful because they don't want too upset people at all and so the message doesn't get across at all.
We need to learn to strike a balance and what i want to know is what I do to help strike a better balance?

A few people have given some good ideas, including yourself.

Anyone got anymore?

 

[digesthisickness]

True digest. But at times i think people are too tactful because they don't want too upset people at all and so the message doesn't get across at all.
We need to learn to strike a balance and what i want to know is what I do to help strike a better balance?

A few people have given some good ideas, including yourself.

Anyone got anymore?

if you're really an ENTP, there's little danger of you going overboard on the tact.

 

[professor goodstain]

now it's makin sense to me. That fits alot better with a dude who is set in his ways. That'll work

 

[CJ99]

if you're really an ENTP, there's little danger of you going overboard on the tact.

True though i occationally get stuck in Ti-Si mode which made me like that a bit. Though since i've got more E that hasn't been happing at all.

 

[CJ99]

now it's makin sense to me. That fits alot better with a dude who is set in his ways. That'll work

Whats making sense?

 

[marmandahalf]

if you're really an ENTP, there's little danger of you going overboard on the tact.

Right, it's pretty safe to overcorrect on this one. It's like Aristotle said.

 

[substitute]

same way you stop yourself doing anything that's bad for you: self-awareness, integrity, discipline.

 

[Jaguar]

So, who's the first? And, how do they realize?

Ever hear someone say, "He or she knew me better than I knew myself"?
Asking me to explain to you how someone "realizes" something about another,
is no different than asking how the hell my Ni is so developed that it scares the piss out of people.
Do me a favor and don't refer to people as "external mechanisms."
I'll spit out my coffee laughing if you do.

Btw, let's clear your inference of my thoughts first. I said that as close to knowing the 'true core of oneself' goes, (1) it is subjective (meaning there's no ONE TRUTH, to sum up each human...I'm inferring this since humans are kinda prone to change over life course), (2) closest a person will get is themselves, not an outsider (aka, external medium/mechanism/another person giving them evaluations, etc). So, you gotta be careful with inferring that bolded 'only' in my statements. I didn't say that.

You could have written a single sentence:

Hey Jag, I didn't really mean "only" the way you inferred."

Now, you didn't say there was an external mechanism, but, it is again logically inferred.

Oh God, here comes the "external mechanism" shit again.

Your underlined (in specific the bold). If they're the last, that means, there's "others" that are the first, second, third.... That is what I'm referring to, the external. Unless all the first, second, third, and last lie all within one person. I call it mechanism, because the other (person) is only relevant in terms of the mechanics of how they sum up a person/their inner core...to our discussion at hand. I argue, it's only through actions/behaviours that any 'other' (external mechanism) can ever know a person.

Ni would argue otherwise sweetheart.
That's a discussion that could flip out a few people. <smirk>

You're saying nope, the deepest core of consciousness of a person is actually gleaned LAST by that specific individual but by others FIRST. So, I ask, giving it the name, external to mean the others (i.e., not spurred from self)....who are these others? And, how do they glean such information?

You are basically asking the same thing you asked in the beginning of your post all over again.
Some people have an amazing ability to penetrate the psyche of others faster than a person "gets" themself.
I realize that might not sit well with you, but some things are true,
whether you believe them or not.

Healthy individuals, my friend, healthy.

It doesn't matter whether it was Dahmer on the stand, or a "healthy" person.
My point still stands, which is many people do not know why they do what they do,
or are even aware of it.

Case in point: a woman who twirls her hair between her fingers.
I have brought that up to some women who then say:
"Oh! I didn't even realize I was doing that!"
Meanwhile, they were probably taking an MBTI test,
and question 63 asked if they twirled their hair.
Lol.

I argued that this gap inbetween mental processing to behaviour could make a case for why the external/other/outsiders can't always truly know the internal state of a person. Because it hinges on the assumption that they're filling in that aforementioned gaps correctly. Which, I'm challenging.

And I am simply saying an outsider could see into another person,
what he--or she--cannot see within themselves.
You will again ask, "what's the mechanism"?
Let's not go down that path again.

I am also saying a person can be truly unconscious about even strong behavior that they exhibit on a daily basis.

The bottom line here is quite simple:
Due to varying levels of consciousness,
there is huge potential for error when one takes a self-assessment test.

 

[Jaguar]

do your own homework. it's the only way you'll learn!

edit: well, shit.

I have said that to people my whole life.

 

[Ezion]

Tact can be multiple things.

Generally, it is stating something in a way to minimize or maximize a specific desired behavior.

Usually used to prevent an emotional backlash towards yourself when you have to tell someone something bad that has happened.

Ever heard the adage "Don't shoot the messenger"?

The tactless messenger gets shot.


*Semantics*
The truth is an abstract concept you have built up in your head.
To understand that using tact is not necessarily deceit, you must understand words.

• Words are an agreed upon verbal/written convention for representing real world phenomenas/phenomenons.
• Through usage of words, you attemp to convey a phenomena.
• The agreed upon convention for a word is slightly different for each person.

Tact involves stating the same truth using words that are less likely to have negative connotations in the mind of the listener.

Observe:

1. It's freezing outside!
2. The temperature outside is below 32 degrees.

Both phrases have the exact same literal meaning. The connotation and mental reception of each phrase differs.

As an aside: Knowing and being able to utilize the connotations is an extremely valuable tool. Even past practical usage, it is the trappings of eloquence; the beauty of words.

Also, eloquence is the mental masturbation of writers. Just thought I'd throw that in.

 

[Qre:us]

Ever hear someone say, "He or she knew me better than I knew myself"?

Ever hear the saying, "Figure of speech"? I have had quite a few people direct this at me, and although I get flattered, I don't really walk away believing that was truly the case. I'm not that egotistical (and that's saying a lot). I just got an insight into someone, the way one gets being an observer, an outsider looking in, and something clicks with clarity due to detachment, rather than speaking from within the midst. That doesn't mean I've seen the basement or the attic nor know if it exists.

Asking me to explain to you how someone "realizes" something about another,
is no different than asking how the hell my Ni is so developed that it scares the piss out of people.

Oh...okay. I get it. It just is. Don't question, don't ask HOW. Cleo can see all.

Do me a favor and don't refer to people as "external mechanisms."
I'll spit out my coffee laughing if you do.

You are quite the faulty external mechanism to me, sweetheart.

Oh God, here comes the "external mechanism" shit again.

Ni would argue otherwise sweetheart.
That's a discussion that could flip out a few people. <smirk>

I don't even know what this means, but, I'm sure that it's more than enough that you and your Ni know. The world can sigh in peace.

You are basically asking the same thing you asked in the beginning of your post all over again.
Some people have an amazing ability to penetrate the psyche of others faster than a person "gets" themself.
I realize that might not sit well with you, but some things are true,
whether you believe them or not.

Fuck believe. We're not in Disneyland. Prove it.

And, this time, try using logical deduction rather than idioms and figure of speech from anecdotal stories as your 'evidence'.

My point still stands, which is many people do not know why they do what they do, or are even aware of it.

Very few of us consciously question or are aware of every little action we do throughout the day. It would be evolutionary unwise for the human species (and our brain's energy) to do so.

Case in point: a woman who twirls her hair between her fingers.
I have brought that up to some women who then say:
"Oh! I didn't even realize I was doing that!"

These examples are getting more ridiculous. Regardless, here it goes, SHOCK! WOW! Jag, you're the man! I can't believe you can seek out the core of a person to this degree! MindHair-Blowing.

And I am simply saying an outsider could see into another person,
what he--or she--cannot see within themselves.

I won't disagree, that others act as mirrors for ourselves in many aspects of our lives. My point from the start has been - no other can be that complete mirror more that you can be yourself (assuming mentally healthy individuals, a'course).

You will again ask, "what's the mechanism"?
Let's not go down that path again.

I will question as this premise of yours defies the logic of individuality, individual identity, one's databank of memory, past experiences, learning, cognition, feelings/emotions evoked throughout life, etc, etc.

I am also saying a person can be truly unconscious about even strong behavior that they exhibit on a daily basis.

Sure, never was my contention with this point.

The bottom line here is quite simple:
Due to varying levels of consciousness,
there is huge potential for error when one takes a self-assessment test.

Okay......we're talking apples and oranges then in this debate. My whole point of engaging in this debate, was with your assertion when I was speaking about asshol(ism) and understanding the 'true core' of the person:

Frankly, they are the last person on earth to make that call .

And, I said, others can't know you more deeply (more to the core) than you know yourself. (I won't contest whether they may get pieces of insight into you, which you may not have been aware, as I agree)

But, whether you're the Virgin Mary in hooker-boots, or an asshole called Robin Hood, all the facets of you....only one person is privy to all that information to make the most informed of decision about the person. You.

Varying levels of consciousness could just mean that a person doesn't know themselves as much as they could. That doesn't mean ANOTHER does.

 

[run]

I realised today that most people either think i'm a complete asshole or a really nice guy or most commonly both.

I realized that while - i think - i can be a really nice genuine friendly guy i can also be a complete and utter asshole and be really cheeky and generally cruel.

I think this is an ENTP thing but it might just be an NT thing. But i wanted to know from other ENTPs especially the older mature ones how you keep you nasty side in check?

haven't read the whole thread, but...

I'm a snob, but in my head. I know an ENTP who is an arrogant intellectual. "But Liszt was Hungarian" <-- sarcastically. He is really a douche. But I think the same shit when certain 18 year olds act the way they do.

 

[Jaguar]

Fuck believe.

When you get a grip on those ridiculous emotions of yours,
maybe someone will deal with you.

Grow up.