I eat awkward silence.

[valaki]

I don't understand your reasoning here. You use it later in the post as well -- strikes me as black-and-white thinking. "It's imperfect, therefore it's inferior". Constantly using terms like "always" and "never". Don't expect to find an "always" answer here, because all options are imperfect, and even what I'd consider to be the best possible option -- moderation between catering to group needs and catering to the needs of the self -- is rife with flaw and error.

Heh no, it's not about imperfection, remember I'm not E1

You misunderstood me. I don't expect to find "always" answers.

I'm just coming at this from a very different background than yours. And I'm explaining that. That's all.

Meh your Social-last talking. The hell is this logic, valaki?

Well if he isn't xSTJ - and he types as INTJ - then it would be E1, that sentence.

Not sure what your issue was with the sentence.

Again, there's no guaranteed. This is all about finding a common denominator -- the whole point of the social "lay of the land" I've been talking about, in terms of networks and alliances, is about finding common ground. If you read those networks -- and the individuals that make them up -- correctly, then it's easy to cater to the largest possible majority. It's impossible to make everyone happy (like I said before), so making the majority happy is the highest realistic goal.

I wasn't asking about any guarantees. I was simply describing how things are, how I often see them happen.

I did say that there can be win-win situations. The difference for me is that I don't care to find those simply for the sake of social goals. There is no need to cater to me in this sense honestly.

Also, my original point was about how the preferences of whatever group aren't worth more than your own preferences. (Obviously this applies in case of conflict of preferences.) You didn't address that too much, I suppose you just disagree on that, fine. I mean, clearly you say the majority is what's worth the most. I don't really see it that way.

It's only partly relevant. It implies that every time you go along with popular opinion, you're giving up your own agenda.

Every time if your own view is different, siding with the popular opinion does mean giving up your own view. And no, I don't like that.

On the contrary, it's very easy to fall in line when it's convenient for you and move on when it ceases to be.

Convenient for soc-firsts I guess

Me, I don't "fall in line". I just exist the way I exist. Moving on is not hard though, sure.

That's where it's important to see the "group" as a whole as being comprised of a massive number of sub-groups and sub-networks. Moving from one sub-group to another as it suits you is often a necessary strategic move. Every individual in a group is a free agent, moving from place to place. Group classification is just one way of handling those individuals without getting overwhelmed by unnecessary detail.

What kind of strategy are you talking about there? Is it for certain social goals? Or what? Give me some examples.

The vast majority of social situations are not going to require catering to one socially influential person.

Not necessarily just one such person. But it does happen often that a group opinion gets formed by certain people and the rest just "fall in line" with that - using your own words.

I'm not trying to make you like any of this -- I'm just showing you that it can, and does, work. Frequently. And since you've gone from "never" to "eh, sometimes", I can tell myself that I've pretty much done my job here.

I'm gonna disappoint you then, because my opinions haven't changed at all. I just explained how I see these things. I don't see where I said the "eh, sometimes" sort of stuff. I guess you misinterpreted something, what was it?

It's not optimism, it's realism. Medium-level fuck-ups are significantly more likely than huge ones.

My experience differs, thus my realism differs from yours. So I see yours as optimistic.

 

[EJCC]

Heh no, it's not about imperfection, remember I'm not E1

You misunderstood me. I don't expect to find "always" answers.

I'm just coming at this from a very different background than yours. And I'm explaining that. That's all.

>.< Then I don't know why you were using the words "always" and "never" so frequently.

Well if he isn't xSTJ - and he types as INTJ - then it would be E1, that sentence.

Not sure what your issue was with the sentence.

My issue was that you were entirely dismissing his viewpoint based on his type. And if that wasn't what you were doing, then your tone implied otherwise.

Also, my original point was about how the preferences of whatever group aren't worth more than your own preferences. (Obviously this applies in case of conflict of preferences.) You didn't address that too much, I suppose you just disagree on that, fine. I mean, clearly you say the majority is what's worth the most. I don't really see it that way.

I spent over a paragraph addressing that -- saying that the group is made up of individuals and how you're better off the more people you keep satisfied. Implied in those paragraphs is the idea that you, personally, are just another individual, and your own needs should be weighed no more highly than anyone else's. Anything else would be selfish -- or at least too selfish for my taste.

Every time if your own view is different, siding with the popular opinion does mean giving up your own view. And no, I don't like that.

Again, not necessarily. All it means is changing the route you plan on taking from point A to point B -- with point B being the "agenda" I referred to before.

Convenient for soc-firsts I guess

Me, I don't "fall in line". I just exist the way I exist.

Whatever -- a lot of people are the same way. There are pros and cons to each side.

What kind of strategy are you talking about there? Is it for certain social goals? Or what? Give me some examples.

Let's say 90% of the group is having a conversation about a topic you're interested in. Then the conversation shifts to a topic that not just disinterests you -- it's offensively boring to you. It makes you angry. You could either stick it out and colossally waste your time, saying nothing or pretending to be interested, and getting increasingly angry in a way that might burst out later, OR you could discreetly leave and join the remaining 10% of the group, who presumably are also disinterested in that topic. That way instead of doing nothing, you're potentially making friends, gaining contacts -- meeting your own needs while also helping yourself keep a level head for later.

The only real challenge of the social sphere is that it presents a new set of rules to learn. Just as it's possible to achieve your personal goals under any other reasonable set of rules, so too is that the case in the social realm.

Not necessarily just one such person. But it does happen often that a group opinion gets formed by certain people and the rest just "fall in line" with that - using your own words.

Yes, that's true. You could view that as power, sure, but really all it is is being well-liked and/or trusted among the group, and having the balls to suggest directions for things to go it. Maybe it's because I find this so easy, that I don't see why you'd complain. Maybe that's why my reaction to a lot of what you've been saying on this thread has been "It's just a game, and it's so easily shaped to meet your needs -- so why not just suck it up and play it?" Refusing to play can earn you enemies, while choosing to play will earn you the standing and power that you were just describing. It doesn't keep you from being "you".

I'm gonna disappoint you then, because my opinions haven't changed at all. I just explained how I see these things. I don't see where I said the "eh, sometimes" sort of stuff. I guess you misinterpreted something, what was it?

Not really in the mood to look.

You still don't see even the smallest bit of validity in what I'm saying, for anyone? I've been talking about how this works for me, how it has strategic advantages. All you've been doing is saying that YOU don't like it, that it doesn't work for YOU -- while all that I've been asking for is acknowledgment of some of the strengths of my position. Like I said, my goal was never for you to LIKE what I'm saying -- just to see how it can often be a good idea.

I can see the downsides of no one ever asserting their own will in spite of a harmful popular opinion. But can you see the reverse?

My experience differs, thus my realism differs from yours. So I see yours as optimistic.

The bolded is why I'm pretty much done with this discussion...

 

[valaki]

>.< Then I don't know why you were using the words "always" and "never" so frequently.

Because it is how it is for me? I don't think you'd have the intent to question my own experiences.

My issue was that you were entirely dismissing his viewpoint based on his type. And if that wasn't what you were doing, then your tone implied otherwise.

Wow that was a big misunderstanding then. I wasn't saying I dismissed his viewpoint. I only said it's an E1 thing to say. That's all, no more, no less.

And my tone didn't imply that he didn't have a right to think that way; true though that I could have a nice big fight over that sort of stuff with him

I spent over a paragraph addressing that -- saying that the group is made up of individuals and how you're better off the more people you keep satisfied. Implied in those paragraphs is the idea that you, personally, are just another individual, and your own needs should be weighed no more highly than anyone else's. Anything else would be selfish -- or at least too selfish for my taste.

OK then I'm selfish

Again, not necessarily. All it means is changing the route you plan on taking from point A to point B -- with point B being the "agenda" I referred to before.

I'm not sure what kind of agenda you mean. Give me an example?

Because my agendas are not always something that can be made to conform like that.

Example, if I have an opinion and want to express it - as an example of agenda -, there is clearly no way to find a "different route" for that if it involves NOT expressing it.

Whatever -- a lot of people are the same way. There are pros and cons to each side.

Yes there's pros/cons. Though I didn't choose this, I'm just like this.

Let's say 90% of the group is having a conversation about a topic you're interested in. Then the conversation shifts to a topic that not just disinterests you -- it's offensively boring to you. It makes you angry. You could either stick it out and colossally waste your time, saying nothing or pretending to be interested, and getting increasingly angry in a way that might burst out later, OR you could discreetly leave and join the remaining 10% of the group, who presumably are also disinterested in that topic. That way instead of doing nothing, you're potentially making friends, gaining contacts -- meeting your own needs while also helping yourself keep a level head for later.

Wow that was an interesting read. It does highlight how differently two people can think/how different their attitudes can be.

For contrast, mine:

If I have a specific opinion on the topic, I would most likely state that even if it's in opposition with the majority opinion. It's nice making friends yes, but I do not see it as "gaining contacts" oh and I don't really try to repress anger like that.

If the topic is just boring then I'll just leave - not necessarily discreetly - and do whatever else I want to do. Not a very social solution again. I will of course be happy taking friends with me, I suppose in a sx way instead of soc way.

If the topic is offensive... well that doesn't really happen often that some topic is offensive to me but I guess in that case I have my own opinion about it and I will state it then, so it goes back to the first case.

The only real challenge of the social sphere is that it presents a new set of rules to learn. Just as it's possible to achieve your personal goals under any other reasonable set of rules, so too is that the case in the social realm.

I get your framework of thinking on this, it's a nice clear way to put it; though I will disagree to the extent that it's a subjective opinion that it's a reasonable set of rules. For some people these rules just don't fit well or seem reasonable.

Yes, that's true. You could view that as power, sure, but really all it is is being well-liked and/or trusted among the group, and having the balls to suggest directions for things to go it. Maybe it's because I find this so easy, that I don't see why you'd complain. Maybe that's why my reaction to a lot of what you've been saying on this thread has been "It's just a game, and it's so easily shaped to meet your needs -- so why not just suck it up and play it?" Refusing to play can earn you enemies, while choosing to play will earn you the standing and power that you were just describing. It doesn't keep you from being "you".

I didn't complain. I simply described how I see this. If it's in negative terms, well then it's negative terms.

The kind of stuff I talked about has nothing to do with balls to suggest whatever, it's more to do with being social and popular. As you put it, "well-liked" in the group.

I don't see life or social life in particular as "just a game". The worst argument one could use for me is "why not just suck it up". LOL. NO. I don't work like that. That's me and so I'm sorry but it would keep me from being me.

I know it can earn enemies ld news:

Not really in the mood to look.

Well oh...

You still don't see even the smallest bit of validity in what I'm saying, for anyone? I've been talking about how this works for me, how it has strategic advantages. All you've been doing is saying that YOU don't like it, that it doesn't work for YOU -- while all that I've been asking for is acknowledgment of some of the strengths of my position. Like I said, my goal was never for you to LIKE what I'm saying -- just to see how it can often be a good idea.

I can see the downsides of no one ever asserting their own will in spite of a harmful popular opinion. But can you see the reverse?

I didn't say it didn't have validity for you. "For anyone" though, the expression you used, would be a strong statement, because, for example, for me it doesn't really have the validity, this is true.

I understand it works for you and it does help me see how different people can be which is awesome to see really.

I am sure it's a good idea for you and all that but I'm not sure what you meant here exactly with the bolded, good idea for me too or just for you? My point is that it wouldn't be a good idea for me. That doesn't mean it can't be good for you.

The bolded is why I'm pretty much done with this discussion...

What's wrong with acknowledging that our experiences - and actually our personalities etc - are different?!

 

[EJCC]

Before I begin, I apologize for being so snippy in my previous post. I had interpreted your tone, word choice, etc. as being intentionally belligerent and unyielding. The above is proof that I was wrong.

Because it is how it is for me? I don't think you'd have the intent to question my own experiences.

I'm not sure if you had made it clear, before, that you were only talking about your experiences, and not presuming that if it's often true for you, then it must be universally true. I know enough people who make assumptions like that, that I no longer assume the best when people say "always" and "never".

I'm not sure what kind of agenda you mean. Give me an example?

Because my agendas are not always something that can be made to conform like that.

Example, if I have an opinion and want to express it - as an example of agenda -, there is clearly no way to find a "different route" for that if it involves NOT expressing it.

I see. By "agenda", I meant "broader goal in the grand scheme of things". Wanting to express your opinion would not fit this criterion, because it would be too short-term, referring only to a particular conversation.

Here's an example. Let's say your goal in a particular social scenario was to befriend someone. Let's say that person is like Cho Chang from the Harry Potter series -- constantly surrouded by a huge and obnoxious group of friends. You don't like those friends at all and would rather talk to her alone. Although that may not immediately seem socially appropriate, you decide to play it by ear, seeing if there's a way to separate Cho from her friends while keeping both Cho and the friends happy. How you would do that would depend on the friends and how the social scenario plays out.

Yes there's pros/cons. Though I didn't choose this, I'm just like this.

Ok good -- that's all I needed.

Wow that was an interesting read. It does highlight how differently two people can think/how different their attitudes can be.

For contrast, mine:

If I have a specific opinion on the topic, I would most likely state that even if it's in opposition with the majority opinion. It's nice making friends yes, but I do not see it as "gaining contacts" oh and I don't really try to repress anger like that.

What if it was a situation where it was in your best interest to make contacts? A networking event? A cocktail party where your supervisors are present?

(Purely out of curiosity)

If the topic is offensive... well that doesn't really happen often that some topic is offensive to me but I guess in that case I have my own opinion about it and I will state it then, so it goes back to the first case.

Sorry -- I meant offensively boring, not offensive overall.

I get your framework of thinking on this, it's a nice clear way to put it; though I will disagree to the extent that it's a subjective opinion that it's a reasonable set of rules. For some people these rules just don't fit well or seem reasonable.

Right. Which is why you'll always have the socially awkward people and the people who don't give a shit. Us social-dominants put you folks in your own sub-category when we strategize.

I don't see life or social life in particular as "just a game". The worst argument one could use for me is "why not just suck it up". LOL. NO. I don't work like that. That's me and so I'm sorry but it would keep me from being me.

Again, curiosity question: Technically speaking everyone accommodates some social norms in order to survive. And everyone finds themselves in situations where they wish they didn't have to conform, but they do it anyway. So where do you draw the line?

I didn't say it didn't have validity for you. "For anyone" though, the expression you used, would be a strong statement, because, for example, for me it doesn't really have the validity, this is true.

I may have been viewing "validity" differently -- in the sense of usefulness. For example, dressing to impress for an interview. Seeking out the most relevant people at networking events and schmoozing with them. Regardless of "validity" in the sense of whether they mesh well with your personality, they are behaviors that, the majority of the time, when done correcly, are rewarded.

I understand it works for you and it does help me see how different people can be which is awesome to see really.

Excellent. I've achieved my goal.

I am sure it's a good idea for you and all that but I'm not sure what you meant here exactly with the bolded, good idea for me too or just for you? My point is that it wouldn't be a good idea for me. That doesn't mean it can't be good for you.

See my above examples --

What's wrong with acknowledging that our experiences - and actually our personalities etc - are different?!

Another word-choice-based communication breakdown, sorry. Reading absolute inflexibility where there was none.

 

[Ginkgo]

While it seems potentially gratuitous to actively instigate awkward silence, there is value in letting silence pan out until someone organically sparks an activity/conversation.

If you're feeling that awkwardness, then any attempt at erasing it will likely be just as awkward, if not more so. Even though silence is a form of action (and therefore, something to be accountable for), nobody really wants to be responsible for making an obviously lame, contrived attempt to get things off the ground, because you then look oblivious to the white elephant in the room. IMO Those condemning feelings that tag alongside mutually felt awkward silence serve as red flags that should be given consideration.

Even if you're silent, your presence ought to be valued because it's time you're giving that you're never getting back.

That said, as an E4, I don't really identify with the desire to perpetuate silence for its own sake.

 

[valaki]

Before I begin, I apologize for being so snippy in my previous post. I had interpreted your tone, word choice, etc. as being intentionally belligerent and unyielding. The above is proof that I was wrong.
I'm not sure if you had made it clear, before, that you were only talking about your experiences, and not presuming that if it's often true for you, then it must be universally true. I know enough people who make assumptions like that, that I no longer assume the best when people say "always" and "never".

No worries.

Here's an example. Let's say your goal in a particular social scenario was to befriend someone. Let's say that person is like Cho Chang from the Harry Potter series -- constantly surrouded by a huge and obnoxious group of friends. You don't like those friends at all and would rather talk to her alone. Although that may not immediately seem socially appropriate, you decide to play it by ear, seeing if there's a way to separate Cho from her friends while keeping both Cho and the friends happy. How you would do that would depend on the friends and how the social scenario plays out.

OK, I see. I probably would focus more just on Cho.

What if it was a situation where it was in your best interest to make contacts? A networking event? A cocktail party where your supervisors are present?

(Purely out of curiosity)

Heh I have never worked as an employee at a company under supervision like that and I don't want to. But anyway, even if I did get into such a situation temporarily, I would work my way up based on my expertise without relying on networking contacts. That's really not my thing.

Btw this doesn't mean I hate people or anything, I do love interaction with people but only for the sake of the interaction, the experience of the actual connection, not for such social goals.

Sorry -- I meant offensively boring, not offensive overall.

Np Guess my reaction is still the same as in case #2 (where I talked about what I'd do if it was a boring topic)

Right. Which is why you'll always have the socially awkward people and the people who don't give a shit. Us social-dominants put you folks in your own sub-category when we strategize.

So how do you strategize about people who don't give enough of a shit?

Again, curiosity question: Technically speaking everyone accommodates some social norms in order to survive. And everyone finds themselves in situations where they wish they didn't have to conform, but they do it anyway. So where do you draw the line?

That's a cool question.

If I can find a point to a rule then I can adjust to it, especially if it does help me in some way. Or if there are tangible consequences of not following it. These are usually the more impersonal rules of society. For example, I don't randomly throw away trash in the street.

The unwritten social rules though that are truly unwritten and arbitrary and more personal in a sense (is this the right word though?), I'm not even always aware of them and sometimes I am but still don't really care and it doesn't really put my survival at risk so it's OK.

I recall reading that the instincts are about survival and so for example soc-firsts ensure their survival through groups. But it can be done otherwise and I rely more on the other ways of surviving

In general I try to avoid situations where I'd have to conform too much.

I may have been viewing "validity" differently -- in the sense of usefulness. For example, dressing to impress for an interview. Seeking out the most relevant people at networking events and schmoozing with them. Regardless of "validity" in the sense of whether they mesh well with your personality, they are behaviors that, the majority of the time, when done correctly, are rewarded.

Whatever is reward for one person may not be seen as a reward for another person.

Excellent. I've achieved my goal.

Yeah my goal was just this too, talk about how things are, see differences etc.