[ENTP] ENTPs how do you stop yourselves being assholes

[professor goodstain]

Who does one learn from the most? A tactful person that masks truths in order to keep an audience or an honest person that presents reality no matter how bad it hurts.

imo. A tactful person can be quite slippery with facts in the way they change the meaning of a symbol to better how people view them and promote their propaganda. Then soon enough this new symbol has a completely different meaning and becomes unnatural. Which can make the whole relation unnatural. i will admit that i can be quite slippery with facts but i replace them by being an a-hole via filling in my own facts. This is usually because tactfulness has seemed to skipped some facts that should have been added to the source that provided only tactful facts out of dishonesty in order to be tactfull. The way i attract a croud is tossing out some edible BS if the subject is worth it. Yet, i am sure to make that BS be very truthful.

What exactly should the characteristics of a tactful environment be? It's usually a bunch of similar minded people. Why are they similar minded? They're not. They're all just being tactful

 

[MacGuffin]

I'm going to have to disagree with you, my good Professor. Tact is a method of delivering the truth in a manner tailored for the ears receiving it.

Thanks, I was about to write something similar.

"Compassion without honesty is sentimentality, but honesty without compassion is brutality."

 

[Domino]

Professor - there's no need for tact with "samey" people.

Tact is not a mask. It's like using a spoon for your cereal instead of a fork. You may get the food to your mouth, but you spill all the milk, bro.

 

[Qre:us]

Am I one what?
An asshole or a psychologist?
An asshole who is a psychologist?
An asshole who isn't a psychologist?
A psychologist who isn't an asshole?
A psychological asshole?

How about someone with a degree in psych who can at times be an asshole?

I'm glad you picked up on my double-ended question. Asshole or psychologist. [note: clinical psychologist is more apropo, though...as anyone, even I, may have a psych degree, and I'm none the better for evaluating people]

I happen to disagree with you that the only person who can decide if they are an asshole to the core is the person in question. Frankly, they are the last person on earth to make that call .
People rarely see themselves as they are, rather as they wish themselves to be.

This whole terminology of 'to the core'....is kinda like us debating about 'asshole'. Regardless, for the sake of discourse....

I disagree that there is some kind of external mechanism of getting to the core of a human being. If there was, along the same line of thinking, your argument about MBTI being useless would be nullified.

People have varying degrees of consciousness which is why I think MBTI is pointless.
It doesn't assess what the person does in real-life circumstances.

MBTI tries to categorize personality traits to predict a pattern of behavior, and, inclinations of behavior to predict/categorize into 16 typological categories. It never claims to assess what a person does in real-life circumstances. And, your point of 'varying degrees of consciousness' means there's no way for any external medium to pinpoint *it*/consciousness. So, how do you think someone (an other) can pinpoint the core of the consciousness of a self, if, (a) it varies in degrees, (b) not predictably assessed by manifestations of behaviour?

Thus, we are then only left with:
Behaviours.

Behaviours are the only thing the world sees of someone, thus, doesn't matter, how to the core a person feels themselves to be an asshole or not, the outside world is not guaranteed a transparency in that. The actions are what matters and seen (only).

So, I'd say 'to the core' is subjective, and cannot be ascertained by an external medium. What an external medium can (and often will do) is build a commentary through behaviour alone. And, if they're professionals, teach the individual to channel in healthy ways.

Hence, my original point, being an asshole versus is an asshole. The former could very well be relevant, the latter is just an insult (deserved or otherwise).

 

[jenocyde]

Hence, my original point, being an asshole versus is an asshole. The former could very well be relevant, the latter is just an insult (deserved or otherwise).

Sing it, sister!

 

[Qre:us]

Sing it, sister!

I got Dennis Leary's "I'm an ASSHOLE, oeoeoeoeholleee" on loop in my head now.

 

[digesthisickness]

when seriousness is called for, the whole point of my speaking is to be heard (productiveness vs. a waste of time), and people will listen best when not put into a defensive mode, and instead, feel heard and accepted themselves. it's that simple, and this alone is enough for me to tailor my approach depending on the individual. (note that i said 'tailor my approach', not 'alter the truth'.)

people often forget the words you used, but they never forget how you made them feel.

as a bonus, this also acts as a screener of sorts by allowing me to distinguish those with whom i'm most easily and naturally compatible from those i'm not.

edit: all of this is assuming the situation is one in which there is still hope that something good can come out of continuing the conversation. like everyone else, i have my breaking point.

 

[professor goodstain]

This is what happenes when tactfulness meets its breaking point Watch People Skills: Office Space Video Clips | Free on Fancast

 

[Udog]

Who does one learn from the most? A tactful person that masks truths in order to keep an audience or an honest person that presents reality no matter how bad it hurts.

'Mask' suggests they are trying to hide the truth so someone doesn't see it. To me that's deceit, not tact.

 

[Domino]

Hey there. Udog. I wish to mask my tactful intentions in a very deceitful unbecoming manner in order to manipulate your mind parts. You will comply.

 

[Jaguar]

Who does one learn from the most? A tactful person that masks truths in order to keep an audience or an honest person that presents reality no matter how bad it hurts.

Honesty gives birth to its own audience.
Does Simon Cowell ring a bell?
Massive audience for his brutal honesty.
It's like a car crash.
Everyone slows down on the highway to take a look.

People have said to me they might not always like how I say things,
but they always know where they stand with me.
That is why they trust me.
I don't blow sunshine up the ass of anyone.
And I don't want anyone doing it to me.

Could you trust someone who always said,
"Daaaaaaaaahling you look maaaaaahvalussssssss."

Rubbish.

Years ago in my sales meetings I would go over the results of the prior week.
You can be humorous in your honesty and yes,
everyone laughed when I would tell people:
"God damn you sucked last week!"
But you see, I was laughing while I said it.
That's not cruel, people just knew that was my style.

 

[professor goodstain]

But you see, I was laughing while I said it.
That's not cruel, people just knew that was my style.

Yes. i am familiar with this courtesy laugh lol

 

[Udog]

Hey there. Udog. I wish to mask my tactful intentions in a very deceitful unbecoming manner in order to manipulate your mind parts. You will comply.

I already sent the $1,000 in Canadian bills to the P.O. Box previously specified. How much more do you need?

 

[digesthisickness]

You can be humorous in your honesty and yes,
everyone laughed when I would tell people:
"God damn you sucked last week!"
But you see, I was laughing while I said it.
That's not cruel, people just knew that was my style.

i use this approach a LOT. but, i'm careful to pay attention to whether the person is just faking being okay with it. sometimes, others pretend to not take it personally when they really do.

...

'course, like i said, it depends on the person. with some, i want them to take it as personally as possible.

right up the ass.

 

[marmandahalf]

I got Dennis Leary's "I'm an ASSHOLE, oeoeoeoeholleee" on loop in my head now.

Ah, there it is. I was mentally singing that as I read this thread but couldn't remember where it was from.

 

[Domino]

I already sent the $1,000 in Canadian bills to the P.O. Box previously specified. How much more do you need?

I can't pay for our matching uniforms with just $1000 Canadian dollars! Pony up! These have rocket skates and stuff!

 

[Jaguar]

I disagree that there is some kind of external mechanism of getting to the core of a human being. If there was, along the same line of thinking, your argument about MBTI being useless would be nullified.

I never said there was an "external mechanism," Spock.

You thought only the person would know what was true of their inner self.
I contend they are usually the last to realize it.

It reminds me of Dahmer on the witness stand in court,
being asked why he killed all those people.
He said, "I'd like to know the answer to that myself."

MBTI tries to categorize personality traits

You cannot categorize traits when the method of collection is flawed to begin with.
I'm referring to forced-choice questions.

Example:

Who do you love more:
A) Mom
B) Dad

Only a complete fool would draw conclusions based upon the forced-choice of A or B,
then claim X, Y, or Z is true about a person, as a personality type.

Here's another question:

At a party I:
A) Listen
B) Talk.

I am not deaf , I do both.

These are the types of assininical questions that are used to "categorize" traits.

I'd say MBTI ranks as high in value to me as the spotted owl society.

 

[Qre:us]

I never said there was an "external mechanism," Spock.

You thought only the person would know what was true of their inner self.
I contend they are usually the last to realize it.

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

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.

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

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?

It reminds me of Dahmer on the witness stand in court,
being asked why he killed all those people.
He said, "I'd like to know the answer to that myself."

Healthy individuals, my friend, healthy. Not those needing clinical psychologists (like I mentioned already). It's kind of a 'duh' that if you are not generally mentally healthy and sane, in accord with the free society, having understanding of your deepest inner core is only one of YOUR MANY worries in terms of reaching a healthy self.

You cannot categorize traits when the method of collection is flawed to begin with.
I'm referring to forced-choice questions.

That could be very well be your criticism of MBTI, I didn't know (couldn't have)...I wasn't disputing it. I just gave you my criticism of MBTI to make a point. It uses behaviour to predict unconscious motivations, without filling in the gap of how motivations leads to outwardly manifested behaviours. Thus, how could we truly know that whatever X behaviours we see are caused by X motivation, rather than, maybe, to avoid Y motivation which can still manifest as X behaviour?
Using that jump-off, 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.

EDIT: To add ** for those that are not fully healthy, seek help - the above does not apply, as I've already started off giving props to the clinical psychologists, let's just add to that, to be comprehensive - therapist, life coach, soul guru, whatever. These are professionals (some on the list) who have learned how to predict from a set of behaviours/behavioural patterns/patterns of thought what could reliably and validly be the internal motivation of said individual when they come to them (get forced to come to them) because they may feel angsty that they're veerying from the mentally healthy path. This, I see as confounding/noise to obviously finding some ephiphany about one's true core.

 

[Synarch]

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

 

[jenocyde]

Summary:

First we were asked how we tone it down, a few said that we try to think before we speak and we illustrated our methods of doing so. Then arguing starting happening about labeling people assholes instead of saying that they are occasionally acting like assholes. There is also a sub argument going about whether being tactful is in fact being deceitful. You are up to speed.