reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
I'm not, and guilt tripping doesn't work on me, nor is there anything I need to apologize for. Can't accept criticism, don't post. Simple as that. I didn't say anything infractionable.
The great majority of that "disgusting" post you've been fuming about involves associations/correlations of N with imagination/creativity/art from official MBTI sources, including the 1985 Manual. That manual was co-authored by Myers, and it devoted an entire section to "Studies of Creativity," including a series of MBTI studies done at UC Berkeley.
Do you think Isabel Myers had a "disgusting bias" in favor of N's, yama? Because if you do, allow me to inform you that Myers was adamant that the reason N's did better in school (for example) wasn't because N's were really smarter overall, but because our educational system wrongly favored N approaches in various ways. And she devoted quite a bit of Gifts Differing to that subject.
The title of Gifts Differing itself reflected Myers' belief that every preference came with characteristic strengths and weaknesses, and that no type should be viewed as better than any other on an overall basis.
But there was nothing inconsistent about Myers both believing that, and understanding that there was a substantial correlation — and as I emphasized at the end of my "disgusting" post, MBTI type is all about "tendencies and probabilities" — between an N preference and, e.g., preferring "imaginative" to "realistic," and being artistically creative.
Forever and OrangeAppled (among others) thanked that "disgusting" post of mine, yama. Do you think they have a "disgusting bias"? Or maybe they somehow failed to detect that disgusting "tone" of mine that you picked up on. And it looks like that's_not_my_name missed it, too. Or on the other hand, maybe the non-disgusting tone that those readers heard reflects my intent, and you're the one suffering from some kind of tone deafness here.
You said your post wasn't "infractionable," and I never said it was — and I virtually never report posts in any case. But that doesn't mean it wasn't wrong, and by wrong, I don't just mean factually wrong, I mean wrongful — as in offensive.
You said, "can't accept criticism, don't post." But I can accept criticism, and I can also defend myself against "criticism" that calls me out for "disgusting" conduct that I haven't engaged in.
And I also have a sufficient amount of intellectual integrity that I can't imagine calling out a fellow forumite for having a "disgusting bias" (or a similar charge) without being willing to explain myself and support my charges. But when that's_not_my_name asked you — twice — what you found problematic about my post (and noted that she didn't find it offensive), you refused to explain, while condescendingly telling her that if she couldn't "see the problem, ... I don't know if I can help you."
With all due respect, yama, if you're going to charge another forumite with anything along the lines of a "disgusting bias," and that person or anybody else asks you what you mean, I think you should feel obligated to offer an explanation, if for no other reason than to give the person you're attacking a fair opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding and/or otherwise defend themselves.
It's not a forum rules issue. It's more of a human decency issue.
Thanks for listening.