Okay, I have been thinking about this. Sometimes I find hyperactive Ne can join dots that don't really belong joined, but once the connection's been made, if we don't realise in time that the connection's false, then we'll soon find all the faulty conclusions being drawn from it tumbling out pêlle-mêlle. For me it's usually a case of "Connecting dot X with dot 3.24, the logical conclusion is..." and the conclusion
would be logical if X and 3.24 were actually related in the way I perceived them to be - but they're not, so my conclusion is illogical.
With my ENFP brother, he does the same perception thing, but then rather than believe he has a logical conclusion/hypothesis, he instead has an emotional reaction (I don't mean a hysterical or hostile reaction, necessarily, it could be a good one or any other kind) which he believes justified, leading to a value judgement on the person/thing that the dots 'belong' to. If you catch my drift. I think Cze Cze that you might've done this here.
I think you might here be falsely connecting some of the 'dots' in the two different, but overlapping situations of digest's defence against hotmale and later Maverick, and mine and Laser's general observations inspired by, but not entirely or exclusively about, digest's situation.
What digest was talking about when she said about saying in a laid back tone, 'blow it out your ass', was that it was a response to this sort of thing:
Stranger: Well, why should I listen to the opinion of someone who encourages people not to take their library books back on time?
X: Hey, that's not true, I didn't mean that, I meant this...
Stranger: No you didn't, I know what you meant
X: Dude, I know what I meant better than you, c'mon...
Stranger: No you don't, and your reaction only validates my initial judgement
X: WTF? Ah, blow it out your ass!
Stranger: See? You're hostile and defensive and blah blah blah
X: whatever
Now, I don't think anyone was suggesting that the Stranger isn't within their rights to continue misunderstanding X, or to be offended by X's reaction - anyone has a right to feel anything they feel, there's no question of rights when it comes to feelings, we all just feel what we feel and have to deal with it, that's the whole deal with feelings, we don't feel to order, we just feel. Any onlooker is also within their rights to make their own judgements about the Stranger and X, and who's right and who's wrong.
But whatever the case, if we take it on trust that X
didn't in fact mean what the Stranger accused them of meaning, then we also have to consider that X had every right to decide whether to defend herself or whether to just figure 'Meh, he's not listening and what do I care what he thinks anyway?'
Now, they could all be wrong - say the Stranger was wrong about X, and then X was wrong about whether or not the Stranger was willing to listen or sort things out. But now they've put each other's hackles up a bit, so further discussion is more likely to degenerate into insults/wisecracks etc.
What you seem to be suggesting is that it's X's fault that the Stranger ended up offended by being told to blow it out his ass. But in fact, the Stranger set himself up to be offended when he made a rash statement about X. Perhaps X didn't communicate effectively to start with, in which case the Stranger was bound to draw the wrong conclusions. It could also be said that, having been provoked to what could be fairly justifiable anger, X deserves a bit of kudos for staying calm and only giving a vaguely insolent/dismissive response when someone else might well have scratched the Stranger's eyes out.
But basically, you can keep on back-engineering situations like this until the cows come home, and every step along the way you can usually find that neither party was completely in the right or completely in the wrong. But the point is that digest was annoyed about being judged
for something she's not, by someone who doesn't know her, and not just simply for being judged. I'd offer here my own opinion, which is that I personally can handle people being offended by me, or objecting to me and I'll take it in my stride and listen to them respectfully
if they demonstrate that they have indeed grasped what I was really doing/meaning, and are objecting to it - as opposed to ranting about what they
think I meant, and then refusing to believe me when I try to clarify the misunderstanding.
It's like I said in another thread - I'd rather be hated for what I am, than liked for what I'm not. But worse than anything is being hated for what I'm not!
But as for the other situation, where Laser and I came in and made observations about more general things, which digest related with, that was different. We weren't saying that we go around making insolent and insulting replies to people all the time and expecting to get away with it, even when unprovoked. We were talking more about this kind of thing, which could be considered fairly stereotypical T style friendly banter - I use an example of me and my ISTP buddy earlier today:
ISTP: Hey, you didn't put sugar in my coffee, you useless moron
Me: Put your own sugar in, dickweed
ISTP: Fuck you man
Me: And your mother!
ISTP: Did you see the Simpsons movie yet?
Me: No, I was meaning to go on Sunday with the kids
ISTP: Can I come?
Me: Sure.
The 'insults' are made instantly innocuous because of the external, physical cues, which are lost in text. ISTP wasn't in the slightest bit bothered by what I said, and neither was I by him calling me a useless moron. It was clear that a close friend of mine of many years wouldn't suddenly have decided I was a useless moron based solely on the fact that I forgot to put sugar in his coffee. To be offended would be absurd. The mutual non-taking of offence is visible in the whole thing being immediately forgotten, amid plans to go to a movie together.
I have known some people who are unable to take such humour without feeling insulted. For example, if my brother had been in my position, though he would've responded externally in a similar way to me, he would no doubt have been thinking to himself 'Does he really think I'm a useless moron or is he just messing about? It's not very nice to say it anyway, even if he doesn't mean it, but because of the way he said it I can't be sure whether he really was kidding or whether he was using humour to get away with saying something he does really think...' etc etc, which is why I would usually tone down this sort of thing around him.
However, regardless of how sensitive someone is, or what their humour style is (and here's the overlap), I reserve the right to respond to an unfair comment to me with my own caustic humour to avoid giving way to anger if I want to, and if the person I say it to doesn't like it, then I don't see the fact that I've now offended them as any kind of evidence that I'm in need of reproval.