EcK
The Memes Justify the End
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 7,707
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
- Enneagram
- 738
meni angri cuz owned or just trying to tease me back?
Enyway, your funny
*sigh*
It's really, all in your head. Including your rethorical skills.
meni angri cuz owned or just trying to tease me back?
Enyway, your funny
*sigh*
It's really, all in your head. Including your rethorical skills.
nice defence
bad spelling.
It wasn't a defense, as I really don't feel threatened at the moment, it's just me saying what I think.
Give me a challenge of sorts or let the thread continue in peace. I realise that you're the smartest 10 years old in your village but maybe it's time to grow up, you're so bad at arguing that it's sad.
Mh, dude, this is just a vague idea, but are you one of these feelers who think they're NTs ?
Choose a side already.
And stop projecting on me. *yawns*
Finally a new one. And nah, im nt
ofc you are candypie
Projection
description:
Attributing one’s own unacknowledged unacceptable/unwanted thoughts and emotions to another. Reduces anxiety, allows expression of undesirable impulse or desire without conscious awareness.
Example:
Assuming that someone you extremely dislike extremely dislikes you. Severe prejudice, severe jealousy, hyper vigilance to external danger, and “injustice collecting”.
Im laughing and been laughing(or ok well smiling) this whole conversation, how about you?
You mean like assuming your own bias and how you would feel about that situation apply to me instead of you?
Oh my, it DOES fit.
How uncanny.
I studied psychology at college, actually.
Oh yeah, and thx for showing to everybody how this isn't transfert. I'm so glad you could provide us with such a nice example of your thought processes bunnybee.I have studied entp for 10 years and he uses same kind of defences as you to make him feel better.
Just to REALLY make sure we're understanding each other.
You've been throwing a tantrum because apparently you think you know my toughts about 'teasing' better than i do and then started arguing against yourself for like 2 pages.
I didn't argue because each one of your arguments actually sank you deeper into your own bad self righteous pseudo logics, what you should have realised even without me being all condescending.
also this is very very boring to me. Talks are supposed to be entertaining, you know.
Oh yeah, and thx for showing to everybody how this isn't transfert. I'm so glad you could provide us with such a nice example of your thought processes bunnybee.
What do you think that was? Initial playful poking around and hoping you'd get into the 'you're the one with the ego' argument.ofc i'm sure, i don't see the point of lying about such details, except for people with serious self esteem/ego issues maybe. *stares*
*stares!*
That was you basically telling that the fact you first started arguing about my own thoughts was because of your ego issues from a purely rethorical standpoint. Wasn't a good one, as you basically handed me the tools to cut your argument down.How can you be sure that you dont have some of these ego issues? Most the time when someone has bit too big ego and little issues with it, he doesent realize it himself, because he simply thinks that hes right about this kind of stuff and others are wrong.
Me signifying your own argument applies to you and you not making any sense in your answer and therefore technically losing the game you initiated.EcK said:, we agree that you're the one trying to tell me what i'm thinking?!
:rolli:Haha, you were easy
that was me correcting you and stating that the exchange was or at least should be over.Right, keep walking brat.
That was you still not getting that you had lost and that my answer was a rationalised statement of respective status within the limits of the game initiated earlier.meni angri cuz owned or just trying to tease me back?
Enyway, your funny
That was me indicating that you obviously/apparently lack comprehension or will to comprehend how arguing works.*sigh*
It's really, all in your head. Including your rethorical skills.
you apparently STILL not getting itnice defence
Me explaining/implying AGAIN that I didn't need to defend myself as you were the one with the bad logics in the first place. Then again, me underlining rethorics a second time hoping that maybe you had somehow missed it the last times.bad spelling.
It wasn't a defense, as I really don't feel threatened at the moment, it's just me saying what I think.
I realise that you're the smartest 10 years old in your village but maybe it's time to grow up, you're so bad at arguing that it's sad.
I sort of skimmed through that one, but basically you're saying I'm feeling threatened.. meaning you still didn't get my first point. And then telling me that I didn't "understand this fully". That was good, be it in a very blasé way.
i get the idea that you are talking about different kind of defence than i am. You dont feel threatened because you were able to unconsciously defend yourself against the bad feeling thats coming inside of you(or what would have come without this defence). Enyways, i think you dont want to understand this fully, so you wont and no point of continuing this in that case.
Facing your obvious issues when it comes to cognitive bias I implied that maybe you weren't being as rational/winning the exchange as you thought you were.Mh, dude, this is just a vague idea, but are you one of these feelers who think they're NTs ?
Choose a side already.
And stop projecting on me. *yawns*
that was you talking shit and acting smug without any sort of backing.Finally a new one. And nah, im nt
and me answering in kind. -sigh-ofc you are candypie
Generally, I really, really despise the fact that every other person on this forum can read my mind, but sometimes, I mean every once in a while, it's rather good as evidenced in the post above. In other words, you described me a whole lot better than I would have. So, thanks.You're right. But it wasn't something I was doing on purpose, rather subconsciously in a way. I think I took too many hits using Fe and processed hurt through Fe, which was very painful. So I- in a way- substituted the functions and used one over the other because, well, a lot of things that would get me down in the dumps just don't anymore. And I'm grateful for that.
this post has the potential to be exceptionally creepy. watch it.meni angri cuz owned or just trying to tease me back?
Enyway, your funny
Ok, seems like you need me to spell out everything.
I use terms like transfer and projection, which imply processes, when all you do is imply you assume emotive responses from me.
If I used these terms to begin with it's because I wanted to see if you'd respond by an augmentation of terms relating to emotions. You did.
I'll let you deduce what it means.
When I said I found your rethorical skills to be lacking my primary goal wasn't to display dominance, It was the result of you not catching such implied sub texts, sub text not relying on my own personnal history but simple perception of logical systems and use and repetition of keywords as hints.
May I present you, exclusively, with the EcK school for people not so good at arguing.
What do you think that was? Initial playful poking around and hoping you'd get into the 'you're the one with the ego' argument.
That was you basically telling that the fact you first started arguing about my own thoughts was because of your ego issues from a purely rethorical standpoint. Wasn't a good one, as you basically handed me the tools to cut your argument down.
Me signifying your own argument applies to you and you not making any sense in your answer and therefore technically losing the game you initiated.
--------------
that was me correcting you and stating that the exchange was or at least should be over.
That was you still not getting that you had lost and that my answer was a rationalised statement of respective status within the limits of the game initiated earlier.
That was me indicating that you obviously/apparently lack comprehension or will to comprehend how arguing works.
you apparently STILL not getting it
Me explaining/implying AGAIN that I didn't need to defend myself as you were the one with the bad logics in the first place. Then again, me underlining rethorics a second time hoping that maybe you had somehow missed it the last times.
I sort of skimmed through that one, but basically you're saying I'm feeling threatened.. meaning you still didn't get my first point. And then telling me that I didn't "understand this fully". That was good, be it in a very blasé way.
Facing your obvious issues when it comes to cognitive bias I implied that maybe you weren't being as rational/winning the exchange as you thought you were.
that was you talking shit and acting smug without any sort of backing.
and me answering in kind. -sigh-
Do you want me to continue ? Or did you finally get it.
Generally, I really, really despise the fact that every other person on this forum can read my mind, but sometimes, I mean every once in a while, it's rather good as evidenced in the post above. In other words, you described me a whole lot better than I would have. So, thanks.