When: Ss are not atheletes. We are not mechanics. We are not insipid. We aren't conflict driven. We do analyze. We can think. We can see the big picture. We can understand you.
I feel: Not much, except sadness.
Because: Closing the mind is dangerous. Assumptions are dangerous. You hurt yourself more than others, but it is a net-negative scenario.
When: I take my time to pull up a whole lot of research, data and so forth contradicting your theory... and the response is a nice version of "you can't understand because you are <x>".
I feel: Well, you say you want to learn and grow, but if you are going to waste my time with closed minded certitude (thank you econ!), I'd rather you say that you won't consider anything that condicts your views.
Because: It wastes my damn time.
My apologies for what has been inadequate appreciation of your contributions to the discussions. I have indeed unfairly discriminated people based on their assumed functions. I have not adequately considered each individual, but I have been combative in order to "get even" with a group of people.
I have especially liked your statistical analysis of various psychometric measures, among others. I had, until now, neglected to notice it. I had felt S as glamorizing for their supposed use of facts and yet, as I felt, evasive and defensive to what they accept as a fact.
I would not have guessed that your feelings of being ununderstood were so much like mine in such a similar manner. Why the non-understanding, then? Perhaps the philosophies adopted by different parties support for proving different classes of problems, with some classes of problems being decidable only with one philosophy.
THis can perhaps be seen less of a personality issue (and less offending) when looking at the different philosophies. There exists, for example, unconstructive and constructive proofs. (this is not a value judgement, but a name given to proofs according to whether they prove an object's existance or also provide some attribute of it's value). If one were to assert the existience of an unconstructable result, one would not help to prove the case for person demanding a real solution with an actual value. If the person's preferences would make them favour either of the two philosophies more than the other, the mutual understanding can only be reached in a subset of all the problem classes.
What I say, is that it would help us to get along if we were to recognize that different acceptable philosophies construct different sets of acceptable hypothesis and conclusions, and different sets of acceptable world views and personal standards. These world views have their own truths, proven things and legitimate concerns and values related to their respective philosophies, and they are for much the same, but they necessarilty have their un-understandible and perhaps also unexplainable parts for supporters of other philosophies. It may even be possible that some true statements are entirely untransferrable to other persons, yet important.
Listening to what may seem unprovable and unbelievable is thus an exercise in giving the other person a benefit of doubt. As giving - or not giving - the benefit of doubt relies on social evaluation of the situation and the benefits expected from adopting a view, as well as the perceived risks, we step out of the world of mathematics and facts to the world of interpersonal relations and other inexact disciplines.
Fortunately we have all the possibilities to master those interpersonal issues too, which opens up the chance of enriching our world views.