User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 61

  1. #31
    Suave y Fuerte BadOctopus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    "red pill" is short hand for a body of knowledge of the realm/arena of interpersonal/intersexual dynamics, between individuals or in the broader culture; alternatively, "using masculinity and/or male attractiveness" on women. It can be used by pick-up artists for "exploitative, no-love-or-commitment-offered, but only *implied*" sex; more charitably, and more constructively, it can be used by a man to keep from being unfairly manipulated by women; best of all, it can be used to bolster a man's attractiveness in marriage.
    So... not a Matrix reference, then. Got it.

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    the many contradictions in the Bible do not recommend it to me as a customary source of guidance.
    I understand how you feel that way, but the truth is, there are no contradictions in the Bible, only misinterpretations.

  3. #33
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skinny-Love View Post
    I understand, believe me, I do. What makes more sense to me is you're inadvertently bringing out the worst in others. I say that respectfully. Consider reflecting on your own behavior.
    Why does this make more sense to you? It seems reasonable to me that someone who is relatively unemotional will find most other people more emotional by comparison. This isn't the worst in them, it's just who they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skinny-Love View Post
    I understand how you feel that way, but the truth is, there are no contradictions in the Bible, only misinterpretations.
    My comment was not a feeling, but rather an observation. Do not presume to know my feelings.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Why does this make more sense to you? It seems reasonable to me that someone who is relatively unemotional will find most other people more emotional by comparison. This isn't the worst in them, it's just who they are.
    You're fine. You make a lot of sense to me. I'm just bouncing my ideas off of y'all. My thought is, if the OP and others chronically encounter a negative form of emotionalism in men, there may be something else at play; I'm reading between the lines.

  5. #35
    Suave y Fuerte BadOctopus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skinny-Love View Post
    I understand how you feel that way, but the truth is, there are no contradictions in the Bible, only misinterpretations.
    I actually agree that there's a lot of good, timelesss advice in the Bible, particularly in Proverbs and in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. Some of the advice in Proverbs is also hilarious. Like how it's better to dwell on the corner of a rooftop than with a quarrelsome wife. lol

    However, this thread is quickly becoming a festival of off-topicness. I fear some of these posts will end up in the Graveyard.
    Likes LonestarCowgirl liked this post

  6. #36
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BadOctopus View Post
    You're very polite and articulate, @OrangeAppled. I like that.

    Also, perhaps I shouldn't have said that I'm not emotional. I actually feel things very deeply. But that's the thing; they're down deep, not obvious to most people. And my actions aren't ruled by them. When making a decision, I always try to rely on common sense, because emotions can often lead us astray. But so many of the men I've known seem to wear their emotions right on the surface, and allow them to pull them every which way. I just wonder where the idea of men being the more stoic, impassive of the two genders even came from. To me, it seems like just as much of a stereotype as "All Irish people are drunkards" or "All Arabs are terrorists". (I do not agree with either of those, by the way.)

    It's rooted in a need to invalidate women as a way to excuse treating them as inferiors, IMO. What's weird to me is when women support this view also.

    It's also an anima/animus thing, where our experience of our inferior function represents the "other", as in, "not oneself", and so it gets projected onto the opposite gender. The experience of it is far more emotional and less differentiated from non-cognitive aspects of the psyche, so "the other" is naturally seen as less rational/more emotional, and even untrustworthy or mysterious.

    Not having obvious emotion for a woman can actually be more of a problem than it is for men showing obvious emotion... and it's because people interpret lack of

    In teaching from pre-school to middle school, I have noticed that little boys are waaaaay more dramatic and emotionally disruptive than little girls, by a big margin. Little girls are taught from a very, very young age that they should be pleasing and non-disruptive, but instead accommodating of others and expressing emotion that is appropriate to a situation. But lack of emotional expression at times is seen as lack of feeling, which is seen as cold, and that can be deemed inappropriate. This is where women get shamed, because we're supposed to show signs of "nurturing" or ability to accommodate, and so not oohing over babies gets us pegged as "unnatural".

    However, boys are taught that their emotion is valid, ie. it's linked to a legit concern, and so they are free to disrupt with it, or ask for it to be accommodated. This is why male emotion is often more violent/angry than sentimental, because it's okay for them to disrupt, but appeasing others is seen as a "feminine" quality. If a woman has a disruptive emotion, then she is being "masculine", which is seen as a threat (as it implies others must accommodate her, not vice versa), and so she is invalidated as irrational, because then her concern is not legit and doesn't have to be accommodated. She's being forced to be the one to accommodate.

    So men can be more emotional, and yet maintain they are more rational, simply because they are defining what is valid or not and have been given that right through their environment from a young age.

    FYI, these are my own ideas from my own observations, not an ideology I've adopted.

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    The other, appropriate more to "conventional" women, as it were, is in recognition of Proverbs. DON'T answer someone irrational...*directly*. Instead, use the female stereotypically superior *social networking* skills: make alliances with all the *other* women in the vicinity, and together, force the irrational woman to change her mind, or her ways, through *peer pressure*.
    This is triggering my social PTSD...

    Seriously though, I read how FPs supposedly tend to block out social feedback (especially NFP females). True to Jung's description, we resist being affected by others feelings, aka, their opinions of how people should feel.

    INTJs being tertiary Fi may have this tendency too. This means the Fe social shaming technique (which has its place in life, really it does; some evil things are rightfully suppressed more successfully this way than with laws) can not only be ineffective, but go right over our heads, not even registering enough for us to be called defiant of it. You see the problems this creates...

    But in dealing with "irrational" people, the best way, for me, has been to shift my perspective, to match theirs, and then I can follow the line of how they came to where they are. In order to do this, I have to suspend what I think is the "obviously right" conclusion, and instead source their premise and follow it with their experiences and situation, etc, to their conclusion. Then I can find a, er, "weak spot", or a point where breakdown happened, and from there I try to lead them to a new place. In the end, the other person has shifted their perspective to something more "reasonable", and often it's more productive and they may thank you for it. The important part is to not invalidate, and that will immediately calm them down as they feel you are on "their side" and not dismissing them or attacking them. Then, appeal to the reasoning they do possess, as it does exist somewhere in there, and then to gently lead them using that. Often what people appear upset or irrational over is not even the root issue, and to get hung up on that leads to petty drama and shaming people as a nasty reaction to discontentment with things unrelated to them. Fe types can "repress" a lot, and then they project it onto others, and the idea is to get them to see their own feelings as valid, as opposed to asking them to further repress them to meet a list of "shoulds".

    Some people are not open enough for this, but I'm pretty good at "blocking out", which is Plan B.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe
    Likes velveteen, thoughtlost liked this post

  7. #37
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    It's rooted in a need to invalidate women as a way to excuse treating them as inferiors, IMO. What's weird to me is when women support this view also.


    It's also an anima/animus thing, where our experience of our inferior function represents the "other", as in, "not oneself", and so it gets projected onto the opposite gender. The experience of it is far more emotional and less differentiated from non-cognitive aspects of the psyche, so "the other" is naturally seen as less rational/more emotional, and even untrustworthy or mysterious.
    My response would lead to a thread hijack and flamewar. I think it relates to other things. PM me for anecdotal instances, it being a "center of the bell curve" and "social norming" phenomenon.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    Not having obvious emotion for a woman can actually be more of a problem than it is for men showing obvious emotion... and it's because people interpret lack of

    In teaching from pre-school to middle school, I have noticed that little boys are waaaaay more dramatic and emotionally disruptive than little girls, by a big margin. Little girls are taught from a very, very young age that they should be pleasing and non-disruptive, but instead accommodating of others and expressing emotion that is appropriate to a situation. But lack of emotional expression at times is seen as lack of feeling, which is seen as cold, and that can be deemed inappropriate. This is where women get shamed, because we're supposed to show signs of "nurturing" or ability to accommodate, and so not oohing over babies gets us pegged as "unnatural".
    Part of the expectation of nurturing is due to the biological process of gestation and lactation *causing* oohing and aahing over babies; and for many, the remembrance or anticipation of such, together with the tendency of women to seek "commonality" with one another (see below). Hence the appellation of "unnatural." (Or as the crowd would say, "Just conform already, d@mmit!")

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    However, boys are taught that their emotion is valid, ie. it's linked to a legit concern, and so they are free to disrupt with it, or ask for it to be accommodated. This is why male emotion is often more violent/angry than sentimental, because it's okay for them to disrupt, but appeasing others is seen as a "feminine" quality. If a woman has a disruptive emotion, then she is being "masculine", which is seen as a threat (as it implies others must accommodate her, not vice versa), and so she is invalidated as irrational, because then her concern is not legit and doesn't have to be accommodated. She's being forced to be the one to accommodate.


    So men can be more emotional, and yet maintain they are more rational, simply because they are defining what is valid or not and have been given that right through their environment from a young age.

    FYI, these are my own ideas from my own observations, not an ideology I've adopted.
    You may be conflating "emotion" with "physical activity" -- I've talked to others with experience with children in this age group, as well as reading the work of social psychologists and the like; and they have noted several differences between the sexes (again, center of the bell curve and all that). Young boys tend to do better in environments where a lot of physical activity is interspersed with enforced inactivity, whereas girls do better at "sitting still"; boys, even at young ages, socialize with one another by assigning a static hierarchy, whereas women reach out even in minor social encounters, to *identify with* and establish commonality with one another; boys are much better at learning through doing, or hands-on learning.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    This is triggering my social PTSD...

    Seriously though, I read how FPs supposedly tend to block out social feedback (especially NFP females). True to Jung's description, we resist being affected by others feelings, aka, their opinions of how people should feel.

    INTJs being tertiary Fi may have this tendency too. This means the Fe social shaming technique (which has its place in life, really it does; some evil things are rightfully suppressed more successfully this way than with laws) can not only be ineffective, but go right over our heads, not even registering enough for us to be called defiant of it. You see the problems this creates...
    Hence the "space cadet / head in the clouds / dreamer" sobriquet for NFPs. Oh, what the hey, I'll yank your chain an go ahead and say it. "Fluffy bunny."
    I know INFPs too well to believe it, however; there is mithril underneath.
    (But don't think everything is well over in the INTJ armoured regiment, either. The legendary death stare wins one no friends, even when one is trying to be nice.
    As another INTJ said once on another thread, they have discovered that it is impossible for an INTJ to be *too* warm and touchy-feely, no matter how hard they try...)

    As for "triggering your social PTSD" ...? Holy crap. Do you mean I stepped on a values land-mine and didn't get set upon in rabid-cat mode?!!!! ("Prepare to disengage, Mr. Sulu, and reverse course at warp factor six.")

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    But in dealing with "irrational" people, the best way, for me, has been to shift my perspective, to match theirs, and then I can follow the line of how they came to where they are. In order to do this, I have to suspend what I think is the "obviously right" conclusion, and instead source their premise and follow it with their experiences and situation, etc, to their conclusion. Then I can find a, er, "weak spot", or a point where breakdown happened, and from there I try to lead them to a new place. In the end, the other person has shifted their perspective to something more "reasonable", and often it's more productive and they may thank you for it. The important part is to not invalidate, and that will immediately calm them down as they feel you are on "their side" and not dismissing them or attacking them. Then, appeal to the reasoning they do possess, as it does exist somewhere in there, and then to gently lead them using that. Often what people appear upset or irrational over is not even the root issue, and to get hung up on that leads to petty drama and shaming people as a nasty reaction to discontentment with things unrelated to them. Fe types can "repress" a lot, and then they project it onto others, and the idea is to get them to see their own feelings as valid, as opposed to asking them to further repress them to meet a list of "shoulds".
    This isn't mere *gold* ; it's what happened when King Midas used the Charmin (think it over...). (Or, if you prefer, it's co-mingled sapphire-and-diamond dust.)

    There is an analogy here which recalls to mind a passage from G.K. Chesterton's The Secret of Father Brown; and makes me realize with a start that old G.K.C. may have been an INFP...!



    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    Some people are not open enough for this, but I'm pretty good at "blocking out", which is Plan B.
    I *still* say I prefer teleportation. ("Scotty, beam me out of here!")
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  8. #38
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BadOctopus View Post
    So... not a Matrix reference, then. Got it.
    It is based on The Matrix, but indirectly; a reference to "seeing things as they really are" as opposed to how one has been taught they are.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  9. #39
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Yes. I struggle with rational females. Its unatural
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  10. #40
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    "Fluffy bunny."
    Rational females - do you struggle with this?-meme-bunny-jpg

    meme+bunny.jpg
    "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

Similar Threads

  1. [ESTP] ESTPs do you identify with this?
    By Azure Flame in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 03-15-2014, 10:49 PM
  2. [sp] Sp doms, how well do you relate with this description?
    By Goosebump in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-27-2011, 08:10 AM
  3. Do you agree with this statement?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-15-2010, 02:11 PM
  4. [MBTItm] ISPs: Do you identify with this statement? (tertiary Ni)
    By rhinosaur in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-19-2009, 01:52 PM
  5. Do you agree with this?
    By Harlow_Jem in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-07-2009, 07:31 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