I only skimmed the earlier stuff; I'll point this out and ask me to read more if it's necessary (i should be studying, which is why i'm nto re-reading now, but i don't mind clarifying if necessary).
Economica's CC arguments are more self-deprecating than self-serving. She's identified it as a major turning point in her life when she discovered just how much of a stubborn ass she was at points with her CCness. She doesn't want to be a stubborn ass, and so she works hard at discovering the ins and outs to everything CC-related. She wants to better herself.
I read her post as self-deprecating. Which I thought was intuitive, since she was an INTJ saying this about INTJs. But I see how you could be (what I perceive as) mistaken re: her being holier-than-thou.
I don't know about the rest of it. I only skimmed it so far.
Ah, I see where we went wrong now. Maybe that's how she did mean it and why her second post on the matter was the way it was.
Further clarification wouldn't hurt, but it can certainly wait. Studying is more important than arguing semantics on the internet and speaking of which... I should be doing the same myself.
Thank you for your response.
anyone? - some of you are reading type as if it constitutes your entire personality. come on - you know it doesn't!
Since you brought it up again, as far as your obesity comment goes, if you did not frame the phrase "Americans are obese" within a particular context (so I could parse it as an intellectual statement rather than as a slur), I would actually have felt some annoyance. (And, to be honest with you, when I read it the first time, I DID feel annoyed. Because while technically it was true, it was a sloppy comment.)
Since I tend to intellectualize anyway, I would just looked for validation you didn't mean it as an insult, then moved on... but I know other people who would have taken the comment personally.
And I think it's just bad communication to not take into consideration how others might likely perceive your comments; the last thing you want to do is shoot yourself in the foot when trying to make a point. As someone else said (Mendacity?), it's not silly to buffer your comments with phrases that give people the cues they need to know whether your intentions are positive or negative towards them...
"Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"
“Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft
Disclaimer: The above is my opinion and mine alone, it does not mean I cannot change my mind, nor does it guarantee that my comments are related to any deep-seated convictions. Take everything I say with a whole snowplow worth of salt and call me in the morning, if you can.
but people put themselves in this position because they equate actual personality with theoretical type. you cannot be every facet of your type.
It's not your job to "show us the way." If people take it that seriously then it's their problem, and while there's certainly nothing wrong with politely saying, "hey guys, you're not every facet of your type all the time," putting the same statement in context with what can very easily be perceived as an insult and then saying, "well it's your own fault!" (which seems to be what your "people put themselves in this position" comment is saying. Please correct me if I am mistaken on this point.) is just antagonistic. And being antagonistic is a great way to start a fight, but a really crappy way to get your point across to someone.
if you want context, read the first lines of the first post in this thread:
so... you're saying that INTJs are intimidating and aloof because most americans are fat?
That's a joke actually. But I still don't understand what you're trying to say if it isn't "Most INTJs are horrible people and most Americans are fat."
Is your point that nobody should be offended no matter how crass a statement you're making about an aspect of someone's personality because it may not be true of everyone? In many cases, what's offensive is the generalization itself. And whether something is a generalization or not, if you're going to criticize someone for aspects of their personality (as I stated before) you may wish to take some time to be as nice about it as possible. People are generally more sensitive about their personalities than their looks. Especially when faced with criticism from strangers... as illogical as that may be.
Not only will your criticism be received better, which I would assume to be the goal, but it will avoid a big ugly fight as well. Unless the big ugly fight is the goal.