I'm going to address this first because this in of itself, this right here, is what got you banned. Don't do this.
You will lose the community before you even really start becoming a part of it. If I was using your backwards logic I would tell you that repeating very blatant, obvious to everyone but you, self defeating mistakes because you wanted to feel bigger is very counter to healthy Ni use as well, and in print it is a quite obvious signifier of insecurity, and the large amounts of hypocrisy in expecting someone to behave a certain way because four shared letters while not even coming close to that behavior yourself, but I also am aware that no one is perfect.If you are not capable of having a conducive discussion without attacking who you're speaking to in some fashion then you are not capable of having a conducive discussion. I can't even call this a preemptive warning because you just returned from your week long cool down ban and most of your posts end up in the graveyard anyways.
Start doing better before you lose the chance to do anything.
With all that said. I was
generally responding to the initial question in the OP and the usual sentiment behind it but even ignoring that you should probably not take any given response as a personal slight, nor attribute it's contents as a response the the question portion of the post that
you yourself, took the time to separate from your answer.
lol This was cute.
1.) The problem is, in no capacity are you positioned to tell/advise me what to do. On that accord, you're out of bounds. Stay in your lane.
2.) You presume far too much.
a.] High sensitivity + reactivity ≠insecurity and low self-esteem. Learn about it if you don't already know. Right or wrong, good or bad, the general fucks I give about being "agreeably disagreeable" are microscopic; that's what you
actually see. In arguments, my intense (sometimes, flippantly so) manner and pointed charge are oftentimes
impersonally and indiscretely rendered though some might assumably take it personally (I might care about this if it behooves me to care); I'm inclined to be like that about everything and everybody. And I genuinely welcome (and almost expect) others to respond in kind and so there's 0 hypocrisy on that front. Half of that is due to being reared by wild hyenas (nurture) and the rest is a genetic predisposition to "turning up" (nature). 9/10, it's not personal. But I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt.
My quip about (your lack of) introverted intuition concerned its utility as a cognitive function, in and of itself, and so comparing that to how a type manifests in its entirety as some evidence of my alleged "hypocrisy," is a
strawman fallacy.
I already know and fully concede that I'm not a typical ENFJ (imo, it's the enneagram 8 that fucks me up). Furthermore, it's one thing to intuit how a certain behavioral choice might work out, it's another to actually care about adjusting/adhering to said intuition. I do so at my own discretion.
Lastly, if I were as sensitive to "personal attacks" as you claim I am, I'd consider this arguably triggered, hyper-sensitive response from you to be a "personal attack" and therefore, subject to punitive action.
Suffice to say, what constitutes a personal attack is arbitrary and that's what makes many of the forum's rules and policies concerning them, ridiculous and, ultimately, inequitably partisan.
b.] It's already been established to my satisfaction that the guidelines that define this "community" run counter to my preferred method of engagement.
Regardless, I'm committed to doing what I want. If I don't violate a rule in the process, fine. If I do, fine. I'm willing to accept the consequences and repercussions--this is a tiny forum at the farthest reaches of the internet; it's not that serious, upon my ouster I suspect somehow I'd cling to life. There are people here that I like and think are cool but, contextually speaking, I don't give a fuck about "community." I define, set, and abide by all the "community" guidelines I want to in
real life, I don't need to do so here. I've come with a specific agenda, that being, to further my understanding of typology. Anything more than that is a plus, not a necessity.
3.) So I'm to blame because you confusingly can't agree on which person to speak in, so as to make yourself clearly understood? lol I spoke primarily in the 1st person but also utilized the 2nd person because
I was directly and literally addressing the actual members of the forum, first by posing an initial question and then going on to pose more within my own response; If you would have solely replied in the 1st person (like virtually everyone else did, with the notable exception of Dreamer, who I also directly responded to) as opposed to problematically/incorrectly switching to the 2nd person (
if, in fact, you weren't specifically addressing me), I most likely would have never reasonably concluded that we were having an interactive, back and forth dialogue, like I intended. Get it together. Clap back when your own house (of logic) is in order.
Lol The real irony is your routine (and inaccurate) mentioning of alleged "illogical fallacies" while you partake of them like a newborn baby to tits.
The first word in my response was "Huh?" because I could barely piece together what in the actual fuck you were talking about. The second and third words were "it seems" (read: give the impression), a
qualifier meant to diminish the strength of my certainty regarding your intent. I allowed for the possibility that I didn't fully grasp what you were saying. It's intellectually dishonest and disingenuous to suggest willful misrepresentation, ya know,
the same shit you just accused me of.
Actually what you're saying might be true, but when looking at your post the first thing that stood out to me, was the amount of paragraphs that begin with "I" in the opening sentence; "I", "I", "Many Times I", and "I" respectively, and then there's this gem in your reply.
1.) Unsurprising. Those types of details usually
first stand out to Se dominants. lol You have picked out instances of me distinguishing myself from others in a literal, readily observed/beheld, grammatical sense. Hilarious.
2.)
NATURALLY, I'm going to consistently speak in the first person when giving my personal, subjective perspective on the topic, which is what the OP called for.
3.) In other news, water is wet and pigeons shit on parked cars. Next.
"No where did I personally separate myself from humanity" Well as a "
High Fe user" and "sage like" Ni user
I can smell bullshit even through the flat screen monitor on my desktop.
1.) lol Here we go, finally, you buttress my overall impression regarding your initial response. It read to me like you took umbrage with what you wrongly perceived to be me distancing myself from/setting myself above humanity (as if I'm outside of the human "problem" and not a part of it[
which I most certainly am]), especially seeing as how in the first few lines of your initial response, you remarked, "I don't think it matters how one feels about "people", regardless of your personal feelings toward every human on earth
unless you live in a remote isolated island you'll have to deal with them, and you count amongst their number regardless if you do live on that remote island." I'm actually iNtuitive and so I know when I taste
saltiness. And yet I'm the "insecure" one, right? lol
2.) Nah, you actually read more like a dominant Se user who cognitively prefers that things be spelled out literally for him, and, subsequently, is prone to misunderstanding and skeptically misinterpreting abstractions.
I. Was. Not. Addressing. Your. Statement.
Your lack of clear communication is the sole fault here.
I'm done with this line of interaction. Carry on at your pleasure. The day I choose to permanently check out of this place, I'll respond then.
