posts split from Acceptance

[Duxwing]

This is going to be my last post in this thread for at least a few days, I've given more than my $0.02 - and I think I'm possibly giving the wrong impression that I'm out to get Duxwing. Anyway, whatever.

Oh, you're not out to get me? OK.

I think that it's going to be somewhat important for you to eventually realise that emotions are an inherent part of all human beings. Trying to eliminate them entirely while simultaneously interacting with other people is futile.

Did I say that I want to? I don't think that I did, but if I did, then by all means point it out; I'd like to have a single, cohesive psyche instead of compartments.

One thing I find peculiar is that you are very quick to highlight the various ways in which you have tried responding to things - intuition, logic, with and without making implications etc. and how none of them work.

"Work..." toward what end? Forgive my poor memory.

Seems as though you're glossing over the point that you don't need to respond at all. Fact is, you don't need to give your input on everything you disagree with on a semantic level.

I agree. My presence here is for pleasure alone, but so is everything that everyone does. The absence of moral imperatives necessitates the elimination of the word "need" from ethics.

Majority of the time people aren't 100% happy with the way they've expressed an idea, and knowing this, pressing people to clarify on every single point will uncover inconsistencies in their expression, however that's not really meaningful. It's just a product of their limited ability to express their thoughts - not the actual limits of their thoughts.

If they can't express their thoughts consistently, then how do we know that their thoughts are consistent?

That's one part of what frustrates people - that you constantly request that they justify, explain and re-justify (and re-explain...and so on until... ) their expressions. Expressions that don't define them, or their thoughts.

Why do they post them, then? I take such care to be literal and direct for the very reason I'm trying to exactly define and communicate my thoughts; I also fear from experience that if I were ever ambiguous, then someone would come and 'judo-slam' me against my own words when disagreeing and then berate me for my ambiguity.

To be fair, there are a lot of fucked-up people around here. Not that I personally consider them as such, but by conventional standards (whatever that is) they are. Chances are you probably won't identify and understand everyone on the forum. It's not your, 'right' to be able to either. Just as there's no onus on them to make you understand.

But I thought that the purpose of the forum was understanding each other's ideas. Writing for an audience that will not understand one's words seems pointless.

This forum is basically a think-tank - people blurt out lots of ideas and theorise on lots of different things, that they may or may not care to refine or understand in any greater depth, and it's easy to see why many would be (or rather, they are) frustrated when they are constantly tasked to do so.

Well, I do so--for the reasons explained above.

In some ways I think certain members bear partial blame, for encouraging you with praise of high intelligence and great potential etc, essentially validating you for being so unflinchingly stubborn.

What? I never felt anything like that from their complements, nor do I believe that they intended as much.

Yet now that you're so prolific, they're not so sure whether they want you around as much.

Anyone in particular? You needn't name names.

Don't get this twisted either, I'm not saying this absolves you of blame - just that I can understand to some extent why you're so fucking confused as to why you're being put, 'on trial'.

I'm so confused simply because the moderator heat had stopped for a while. I figured that that meant that what I was doing was fine.

Personally I think it's presumptuous and (somewhat) irresponsible to refer to impressionable minds as either gifted or untalented in such definite ways. Though that's assuming 'worst-case' scenario, that they're going to develop some sort of complex. Yet I think it's common enough for people to develop real psychological problems as a result of this sort of feedback (like children who are told they're, 'broken' and sent to therapy) that people should withhold such judgements until they know people more intimately.

Wise words! I've already a problem with frustration because of such compliments, and I may underestimate my social skills because of going to therapy. Your argument is echoed by the annals of psychology, as well.

Don't get this all twisted either though, I'm not saying this situation is akin to any sort of unjust trial. It's just a general observation of behaviour patterns I've noted through reading studies and personal experience - and this situation is certainly not relevant to any of those. Probably shouldn't have even brought it up, although I'm reluctant to delete it in case it gleans some small measure of insight for someone.

Actually, I gleaned plenty of insight from that. Thanks.

From a behaviourist perspective, you don't have much reason to reduce your posting at this moment in time. You enjoy the writing of long posts, you enjoy stating the obvious logic, and you enjoy the conflict that ensues.

You're describing what you think is going on inside my head, right? If so, then I have a few questions and answers:

--A: Yes, I like writing long posts.
--Q: What is "the logic," and why is it so obvious?
--A: Not the conflict itself, but it's side effects: intellectual stimulation and excitement from fine distinctions, near-misses, and opinions changed--both theirs and mine.

I'd even bet that you enjoy the interaction that comes from putting you on "trial".

Not really, no. It makes me quite nervous. However, I do hope that I'll gain something from it.

Perhaps you should set yourself somewhat arbitrary goals?

- never respond with more words than was used in the initial post
- never respond to every single paragraph unless there are three or less
- If subject matter has been repeated twice, and you still can't bring anything new to the conversation, bring the conversation to an end in a respectable fashion.
- put at least as many words into asserting positive claims as you do rebuking the claims of others

These are just suggestions.

I'd like to ask a few questions to clarify:
- Including an OP that intends large discussions?
- By "reply," you mean break up, right? And I think that you mean "three or more"; long exchanges of ideas can become impossible without broken up quotes.
- By "subject matter," do you mean thesis statements? Some debates run long on one subject.
- I think that you mean "refuting" and not "rebuking," but the context of our discussion could make the latter what you intended to use, and why?

Justify these goals with the aim of self-improvement. You are improving your social and communicative skills. The more immediate benefit is that it provides an indirect quality control for your posts. You would have to pick and choose what you do and do not say, rather than blathering every modicum of thought that graces your consciousness.

Zing! O.O

Another question before I can respond in detail: Why, specifically, do these goals improve my communication and socialization? Your ideas are quite novel to me.

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I chucked out the stuff I thought was addressed by other madmin since my last response.

Who are you talking about, him, me, or the both of us? Who is the fly, and who is the horse?

You were the fly, and he, the horse's ass. (Though he's a lovable horse's ass if you get to know him better, honestly).

I have a flow chart for that if you'd like it. But authenticity was brought up not because I think that what you suggest, in itself, is a bad idea, but rather that since I don't know how to derive it from what I know (which would include what I've learned) your suggestion seems arbitrary in the extreme--not bad, not good, just arbitrary. Imagine if I, right now, tried to convince you to buy a red, three-bladed lawnmower--not just a lawnmower, but a red one with three blades, both of these properties are essential to getting to the "light at the end of the tunnel".

The cognitive dissonance between ^this and the post it was in response to is too much of a gap to bridge by conventional means. A new approach... one that shifts the responsibility of taking up perspectives and prods the mule a bit more directly (as opposed to forcefully).



I ask about authenticity because how we view ourselves determines, in a roundabout way, how we perceive and interact with the world around us, those in it, and our behavior towards them. One who isn't authentic is living a lie that, if/when the bubble bursts, it can take them out with it, shattering their definition of "me" and ending with a bang (or any of a suite of other sound effects).

Some time ago I apologized via PM, for questioning your MBTI type (a barometer of your self-perception) while in the midst of an existential crisis. MBTI obviously isn't perfect or anywhere close (a point that's been beaten to death previously by Snafu, Auburn, et al.), but it has its positives (though these vary on an individual basis), just ask Architect. This is my operational basis. You tipped off the spidey sense, and indeed that of several others (**Words, et al). You are no longer in an existential crisis.

Your confusion stems from the fact that you're different from many here. Indeed we're all nuts, but you, Axxx, are a special nut. (I use Axxx so that you know I'm speaking to you as a person, not an online facade. You let it slip a while back).

I can't read minds.

First, you have no Ne. None, at all, in your tiny teenage body. N O N E No Ne None. To put it simply, A Ne-user, regardless of its position in their functional stack, would have been able to make the connections that you're having trouble with, or are unable to make. The above is just a quick example from your response, but they abound. If you've any doubt, ask and I'll be able to provide several examples. You average 9 posts a day (12-15 in the past), which is a side effect of this Ne void and subsequent need for clarification.

I have no problem considering other's perspectives, provided that they state their axioms: I argue when I disagree with someone within a given 'perspective' (by which I assume that you mean set of axioms).

Or do you want me to just go along with what the other person says without disagreement?

Second, you're relying on formal logic as a means of compensation. Whereas many here simply "get it," you need things to be more detailed, particular, and spelled out to you. "Getting it" doesn't equate to accepting things without question, but to understanding it, all of it, faster. INTPf is indeed a place where logic reigns, but only because it comes so naturally to its membership. You use formal logic as a crutch, which stands out.

From what I understand, you're saying that although both they and I attempt disproof by contradiction, I use axioms that, while not explicitly taken by the speaker, I assume that they would take. Do I understand?

I'm saying that you reject something until it is proven by your opponent, while others assume it could be true and actively try to prove it themselves, rejecting it if they can't. It screams Ni.

Third, you're a feeler. Going back to the days when you first arrived, the e-hugs and emotional smothering, though annoying, were what you naturally did. Compared to the remainder of the forum population, you have a gargantuan romantic obsession that manifests in content you post regarding yourself as well as threads made by others. You're drawn to relationship threads like white on rice in a glass of milk on a paper plate in a snowstorm.

Still doubt being a feeler? Have a look:

When I get disagreed with, no matter how much the other person's words hurt me (and believe me, some things that people have said here have literally made me jump out of my chair and hide among my pillows) I force myself to detach from my fleeting emotions

In other words: "My emotions are so powerful that I must repress them in order to think logically. My T is below my F in my functional stack."

I think you know what the implications of this are in MBTI terms, though I'm not (yet) going into full specifics because I want you to explore the remainder for yourself (hint: there are 4 remaining boxes to stuff yourself into). The question is whether or not you will integrate these implications into your concept of self and adopt a role here accordingly. We want you here, we like you, we respect what you do here, just not always how. The how can only be addressed through changes in self perception and reflection. When/if these changes occur, when yourself and others both see you as authentic, that will be when you are viewed as an esteemed member here, respected by the old dogs like ThoseWhoShallNotBeNamedLestIGetInTroubleForCallingThemDogs.

Something else to consider is that not only does your self-perception alter your behavior, but how others view you, which affects their behavior towards you.

**: http://www.intpforum.com/converse.php?u=6869&u2=2584
Also consider that I believed myself to be INTJ for >year. WTF was I thinking?

 

[Jennywocky]

... you, Axxx, are a special nut. (I use Axxx so that you know I'm speaking to you, not an online facade. You let it slip a while back).

A.
A. Murdoch.
Ajax.
Arno.
Addy Murdoch.
Hi, I'm Alms. Alms Murdoch.
Abby.
Hey, I'm Abel.
Axle Murdoch.
Aggy Murdoch, glad to meet you!
Alan. Alan Murdoch.
Apex.
Azle.
Alpo.
Mr. Murdoch.

Drat. Was I close?

First, you have no Ne. None, at all, in your tiny teenage body. N O N E No Ne None. To put it simply, A Ne-user, regardless of its position in their functional stack, would have been able to make the connections that you're having trouble with, or are unable to make. The above is just a quick example from your response, but they abound. If you've any doubt, ask and I'll be able to provide several examples. You average 9 posts a day (12-15 in the past), which is a side effect of this Ne void and need for clarification.

...I forgot to note this in the e-mail I responded to earlier this afternoon, but this is a distinct possibility. There are few if any connections that are being made intuitively, without every little detail needing to be spelled out, which is another reason why the N's are getting frustrated.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Drat. Was I close?

I think you're one of the few who actually know, since I believe you were involved in that particular convo...

There are few if any connections that are being made intuitively, without every little detail needing to be spelled out, which is another reason why the N's are getting frustrated.

I wouldn't rule out that N entirely...

 

[Jennywocky]

I think you're one of the few who actually know, since I believe you were involved in that particular convo...

Oh fudge. Too bad my memory is riddled with holes, due to my notoriously bad sleeping habits...

sorry for the slight tangent there.

 

[Duxwing]

I chucked out the stuff I thought was addressed by other madmin since my last response.

You were the fly, and he, the horse's ass. (Though he's a lovable horse's ass if you get to know him better, honestly).

So I thought. I just wanted to be sure.

The cognitive dissonance between ^this and the post it was in response to is too much of a gap to bridge by conventional means. A new approach... one that shifts the responsibility of taking up perspectives and prods the mule a bit more directly (as opposed to forcefully).

Are you describing your approach, or asking me to take a new one? And before you cry "Sensor!" there are chunks of text missing, dude!

I ask about authenticity because how we view ourselves determines, in a roundabout way, how we perceive and interact with the world around us, those in it, and our behavior towards them. One who isn't authentic is living a lie that, if/when the bubble bursts, it can take them out with it, shattering their definition of "me" and ending with a bang (or any of a suite of other sound effects).

I agree wholeheartedly.

Some time ago I apologized via PM, for questioning your MBTI type (a barometer of your self-perception) while in the midst of an existential crisis. MBTI obviously isn't perfect or anywhere close (a point that's been beaten to death previously by Snafu, Auburn, et al.), but it has its positives (though these vary on an individual basis), just ask Architect. This is my operational basis. You tipped off the spidey sense, and indeed that of several others (**Words, et al). You are no longer in an existential crisis.

I agree that I am not.

Your confusion stems from the fact that you're different from many here. Indeed we're all nuts, but you, Axxx, are a special nut. (I use Axxx so that you know I'm speaking to you as a person, not an online facade. You let it slip a while back).

Hehehe! Oh, I never noticed. Did you edit your post?

First, you have no Ne. None, at all, in your tiny teenage body. N O N E No Ne None. To put it simply, A Ne-user, regardless of its position in their functional stack, would have been able to make the connections that you're having trouble with, or are unable to make. The above is just a quick example from your response, but they abound. If you've any doubt, ask and I'll be able to provide several examples. You average 9 posts a day (12-15 in the past), which is a side effect of this Ne void and subsequent need for clarification.

You only know me from my forum posts. A categorical negative claim therefore seems strange. The reasons that I don't make connections here (but do elsewhere) is that I don't want to be wrong and then build a castle on nothing. I fear getting the rug yanked out from under me. The fear is doubled here, where I might be fundamentally altering my behavior. To assuage my fear, I use Si to go by the book.

You also don't see my Ne because I run it in the "back end," using it to explore possibilities, create hypotheticals, and identify contradictions. I could show it to you, but no-one seems to like seeing it. My school doesn't like my analogies, my parents want me to get to the point, etc. I love improv, for instance, and I do it all the time, especially with my little brother. It's thrilling!

Second, you're relying on formal logic as a means of compensation. Whereas many here simply "get it," you need things to be more detailed, particular, and spelled out to you. "Getting it" doesn't equate to accepting things without question, but to understanding it, all of it, faster. INTPf is indeed a place where logic reigns, but only because it comes so naturally to its membership. You use formal logic as a crutch, which stands out.

I'm compensating for the fact that I know nothing of what the other person is trying to say, and wild, crazy divergent possibilities open up whenever I see ambiguity (Ne). If anything, I'm a stressed-out INTP acting as an ESFJ, leaning on Si (as I always do when stressed out) and hungry for Fe.

Also, I've met other INFJs and see them as very different, and I'm often baffled by their illogic and lines of (only) seemingly valid leaps of reasoning.

I'm saying that you reject something until it is proven by your opponent, while others assume it could be true and actively try to prove it themselves, rejecting it if they can't. It screams Ni.

What are you talking about? I almost never reject things because my opponent hasn't proven them (weird special cases and exceptions exist because of some funny logic rules); I apologize if I seem to do so. I simply don't make a claim one way or the other on the truth value of their claim and hold that they haven't proven it.

Third, you're a feeler. Going back to the days when you first arrived, the e-hugs and emotional smothering, though annoying, were what you naturally did. Compared to the remainder of the forum population, you have a gargantuan romantic obsession that manifests in content you post regarding yourself as well as threads made by others. You're drawn to relationship threads like white on rice in a glass of milk on a paper plate in a snowstorm.

Ever hear of inferior attraction and binary emotional operations in INTPs? That was why.

Still doubt being a feeler? Have a look:

The really angry ones, yes, and I was talking about my entire time on this forum, lest you have been confused.

In other words: "My emotions are so powerful that I must repress them in order to think logically. My T is below my F in my functional stack."

If I let my emotions roam free whenever and however they wanted, then I would be in a continuous meltdown; Therefore, I calm down and think so that I don't fly off the handle. Furthermore, either your analysis is wrong, mine is wrong, another mod's is wrong, or we're all wrong, because they respectively came out to xNFJ, INTP, and ESxJ, but I digress. Imagine if you let the tiniest emotional event snowball into something massive: you'd go insane. So I realized that I could think without going crazy once I applied some rules of logic. Note that I essentially knew the rules once I read them, but this was And if you had some Ne, then you would have intuited (and frankly, even a Si-dom would have noticed) that those situations were a stress test, not a representation of everyday function.

Also: Architect's four links on INTP growth. INTPs are not emotionless ice-cubes.

I think you know what the implications of this are in MBTI terms, though I'm not (yet) going into full specifics because I want you to explore the remainder for yourself (hint: there are 4 remaining boxes to stuff yourself into). The question is whether or not you will integrate these implications into your concept of self and adopt a role here accordingly.

We want you here, we like you, we respect what you do here, just not always how. The how can only be addressed through changes in self perception and reflection. When/if these changes occur, when yourself and others both see you as authentic, that will be when you are viewed as an esteemed member here, respected by the old dogs like ThoseWhoShallNotBeNamedLestIGetInTroubleForCallingThemDogs.

Not so fast. I haven't finished rebutting.

Something else to consider is that not only does your self-perception alter your behavior, but how others view you, which affects their behavior towards you.

But of course.

**: http://www.intpforum.com/converse.php?u=6869&u2=2584
Also consider that I believed myself to be INTJ for >year. WTF was I thinking?

Hehehe!

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

PM posted with permission:

Is it alright with you if I make this PM (only what's quoted) public?

I'm finished being the probing bad cop, hence the new approach taken in my latest response to that thread.

I knew that she was being too good. You got nothing.

There is disagreement among the ranks as to whether you are INFJ, ENFJ, INTJ, or ENTJ. We want you to explore these to make sure your self-perception is correct, hence LoR's (the good cop) suggestion that you view yourself as a Te user. Regardless, I must sadly inform you that regardless of the outcome, you will lack a Pness.

Chill out on the self-assuredness, dude. My Ne is there, just used in a weird way.

However, many long term, well-respected members here also share this deficit (I can only refer to it as such since I have one ), since this forum is actually less about typology and much more about intellectual discussion and stimulation (it was formed by the outcasts of INTPCentral, after all).

I see what you're doing there, trying to divert the conversation. Nice move.

I wish you luck in your self-discovery and quest for a niche in the forum flow (though the whole "wishing luck" statement is a mere formality because I'm fairly certain you'll discover it) .

I'm trying to find one. Currently, it's grammarian, logic checker, and debater who acts like this when cleared hot.

-Duxwing

Sure, but add:

"I'm now unsurprised that I didn't understand what you and LOR were saying before: you were playing games the whole time! Understanding people is difficult when they're conniving behind your back, don'tcha think? "

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Spoiler

Are you describing your approach, or asking me to take a new one? And before you cry "Sensor!" there are chunks of text missing, dude!

I was merely stating my own thoughts.

If you're referring to the prior PM, that didn't make any sense either.

INTPs are not emotionless ice-cubes.

INFJs aren't logicless religious ideologues.

Also, I've met other INFJs and see them as very different, and I'm often baffled by their illogic and lines of (only) seemingly valid leaps of reasoning.

Perhaps you misunderstand what it means to be INFJ.

You may find these useful, if you're actually willing to consider them. The Ni Ti loop:

1. http://theinfjcafe.blogspot.com/2012/06/ti-little-loopy.html

2. This thread, specifically the OP and the response in post #3: http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/95230-ni-ti-loop-thoughts-mistyped-intj.html

Socrates on trial, or an INFJ with a martyr complex?

Dux, there are some 200-300 active members here, at least 100 likely INTP, at least 30 of whom are regulars. We only know them from their forum posts as well. You don't seem to correlate with any of them. This isn't to say you don't belong here in the fruit bowl, just that you're a kiwi instead of an apple. We want you to be a happy, productive, helpful little kiwi, not an over-ripe banana.

Our goal is to maintain the quality of the forum, and I believe at this point we've provided more than enough feedback for you to address the issues raised. Your self-perception may or may not have something to do with it, though myself and others believe that it does. Regardless, you are responsible for you. Continuing to do exactly what got you sent to Siberia in the first place, in threads or through PMs, will not help your case.

I'm out.

 

[Duxwing]

Spoiler

I was merely stating my own thoughts. If you're referring to the prior PM, that didn't make any sense either

Spoiler

OK?

INFJs aren't logicless religious ideologues.

I didn't say that they were. I was saying that INTPs don't lack emotions, and that saying that I am not an INTP because I have them is silly--Go to the Feeler envy thread for details. And I said that INFJ's are prone to creating lines of seemingly logical reasoning that fall apart when examined closely. own8ge is a classic example.

Perhaps you misunderstand what it means to be INFJ.

You may find these useful, if you're actually willing to consider them. The Ni Ti loop:

1. http://theinfjcafe.blogspot.com/2012/06/ti-little-loopy.html

2. This thread, specifically the OP and the response in post #3: http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/95230-ni-ti-loop-thoughts-mistyped-intj.html

I'll take a look.

Socrates on trial, or an INFJ with a martyr complex?

Well it's a little hard not to feel like many are against you when the moderators admit to playing Good Cop, Bad Cop to screw with your head and see how you work. I'm not a martyr, I just find myself thinking that I'm screwed over.

Dux, there are some 200-300 active members here, at least 100 likely INTP, at least 30 of whom are regulars. We only know them from their forum posts as well. You don't seem to correlate with any of them. This isn't to say you don't belong here in the fruit bowl, just that you're a kiwi instead of an apple. We want you to be a happy, productive, helpful little kiwi, not an over-ripe banana.

You want me to act authentically, right. You've said as much. But of course, you might still be playing Good Cop, Bad Cop, so how should I know if you mean any of this?

Our goal is to maintain the quality of the forum, and I believe at this point we've provided more than enough feedback for you to address the issues raised. Your self-perception may or may not have something to do with it, though myself and others believe that it does. Regardless, you are responsible for you. Continuing to do exactly what got you sent to Siberia in the first place, in threads or through PMs, will not help your case.

Feedback? I seriously doubt that what you personally have provided was anything remotely similar to "feedback". For crying out loud, in a situation wherein I had no clue what was going on and was trying to understand you, you and LOR played Good Cop, Bad Cop with me as if I really were some sort of criminal to be poked, prodded, manipulated, and interrogated, and then you wonder why I feel like I'm on trial here. How is that pernicious panopaly "feedback"?

Well of course I'm locking down and becoming very skeptical. How am I supposed to know whether you're just trying to play my heartstrings or actually communicating something of value? When will the next ruse be revealed, the next layer of trickery? Is this all a sham or a test, too, to see what I've learned? Playing games isn't the answer.

-Duxwing

 

[Hadoblado]

You're describing what you think is going on inside my head, right? If so, then I have a few questions and answers:

Funnily enough, the definition of behaviourism dictates that I should not be inferring what's going on in your head at all. Rules broken//

--Q: What is "the logic," and why is it so obvious?

Perhaps that was worded poorly. I mean that you need everything crisply set out in a deductive manner, with no room for error. It takes a lot longer that way.

I'd like to ask a few questions to clarify:

Not surprising.

- Including an OP that intends large discussions?
- By "reply," you mean break up, right? And I think that you mean "three or more"; long exchanges of ideas can become impossible without broken up quotes.
- By "subject matter," do you mean thesis statements? Some debates run long on one subject.
- I think that you mean "refuting" and not "rebuking," but the context of our discussion could make the latter what you intended to use, and why?

It's irrelevant what I meant. They were only suggestions. Yes I meant refute ooops!

Another question before I can respond in detail: Why, specifically, do these goals improve my communication and socialization? Your ideas are quite novel to me.

You need to be able to infer intent, and act upon your inference. If you can't, you'll be bad at communicating ideas because nobody will want to read/listen to your dry and overlength statement/questions. Even now I feel myself getting sucked into a blackhole of clarifying statements. A conversation should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Your current modus operandi smothers a conversation before it can leave the starting phase.

 

[Duxwing]

Funnily enough, the definition of behaviourism dictates that I should not be inferring what's going on in your head at all. Rules broken//

Psychology has moved on to Cognitive Behaviorism, wherein the patient's thoughts are modeled as well.

Perhaps that was worded poorly. I mean that you need everything crisply set out in a deductive manner, with no room for error. It takes a lot longer that way.

Oh, OK.

Not surprising.

It's irrelevant what I meant. They were only suggestions. Yes I meant refute ooops!

But if I can't understand them, then how do I apply them?

You need to be able to infer intent, and act upon your inference. If you can't, you'll be bad at communicating ideas because nobody will want to read/listen to your dry and overlength statement/questions. Even now I feel myself getting sucked into a blackhole of clarifying statements. A conversation should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Your current modus operandi smothers a conversation before it can leave the starting phase.

So you're saying that I ask for too extensive an axiom list instead of inferring and thereby smother conversation, then?

-Duxwing

 

[Hadoblado]

So you're saying that I ask for too extensive an axiom list instead of inferring and thereby smother conversation, then?

Yes, that exactly.

With the suggestions, they were to give you material with which to infer you own set of rules, if you so wished. Think of it as a puzzle, they were my first guesses, but by no means true. You pointed out problems with them, but it's not for me to say in which way you should improve on them. You don't need to apply them, and thus you don't need to necessarily understand them. You get the gist.

This, btw, is a perfect example of the gap that you are having difficulty bridging. I communicated the broad outline of an idea, and my intention was for you to fill in the gaps. Instead of you taking the idea and seeing where it led, you asked for further clarification.

Also, yes behaviourism has progressed, but some ideas don't require more complex models. Behaviourism is beautiful in that it limits its scope, and produces concrete principles, something that is often sorely lacking in the discipline of psychology.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Well it's a little hard not to feel like many are against you when the moderators admit to playing Good Cop, Bad Cop to screw with your head and see how you work. I'm not a martyr, I just find myself thinking that I'm screwed over.

No. That was an analogy taken out of context, one I should of clarified in the PM because I should have foreseen you latching onto it, and one that will become apparent if you ask LoR.

We don't have the time nor the energy to invest in screwing with your head. You're not that much of a priority. What we see is someone with a few kinks that need to be ironed out regarding their interactions on the forum who is also relatively young and has issues (like we all inevitably do). We see a branch on a tree starting to grow back in on itself who doesn't understand that if it continues going in its current direction it will need to be pruned, because it can't see the tree for its leaves and roots. The effort you're receiving is a direct relation to the amount of potential we believe you hold.

Well of course I'm locking down and becoming very skeptical. How am I supposed to know whether you're just trying to play my heartstrings or actually communicating something of value? How about actually considering what's been said? When will the next ruse be revealed, the next layer of trickery? Is this all a sham or a test, too, to see what I've learned? Playing games isn't the answer.

Ironically, ^this is Ni. The doorslam: http://www.intpforum.com/converse.php?u=5895&u2=6869&page=2

 

[Duxwing]

Yes, that exactly.

With the suggestions, they were to give you material with which to infer you own set of rules, if you so wished. Think of it as a puzzle, they were my first guesses, but by no means true. You pointed out problems with them, but it's not for me to say in which way you should improve on them. You don't need to apply them, and thus you don't need to necessarily understand them. You get the gist.

This, btw, is a perfect example of the gap that you are having difficulty bridging. I communicated the broad outline of an idea, and my intention was for you to fill in the gaps. Instead of you taking the idea and seeing where it led, you asked for further clarification.

Well I thought that you thought that these were a good idea. Remember that I can't see your face, etc. through the internet.

Also, yes behaviourism has progressed, but some ideas don't require more complex models. Behaviourism is beautiful in that it limits its scope, and produces concrete principles, something that is often sorely lacking in the discipline of psychology.

True.

-Duxwing

 

[crippli]

What's up with the colours? Is taking colour blindness into accoubt Ne or Se?

Btw-Duxwing. If you are 50 years old, smell amd have hairy legs, it's fine with me!

 

[Duxwing]

What's up with the colours? Is taking colour blindness into accoubt Ne or Se?

Haha! An excellent point.

Btw-Duxwing. If you are 50 years old, smell amd have hairy legs, it's fine with me!

Awww.

No. That was an analogy taken out of context, one I should of clarified in the PM because I should have foreseen you latching onto it, and one that will become apparent if you ask LoR.

Analogy? What the heck? I thought that you were being serious. :/

We don't have the time nor the energy to invest in screwing with your head. You're not that much of a priority.

If you didn't and I weren't, then why did what you and LOR did amount to as much? Perhaps you aren't aware (we can't see ourselves from the outside) but you two really did seem like the Good Cop and the Bad Cop when you put it that way.

What we see is someone with a few kinks that need to be ironed out regarding their interactions on the forum who is also relatively young and has issues (like we all inevitably do). We see a branch on a tree starting to grow back in on itself who doesn't understand that if it continues going in its current direction it will need to be pruned, because it can't see the tree for its leaves and roots. The effort you're receiving is a direct relation to the amount of potential we believe you hold.

I find your end great. Your means are kinda strange, though. O.O

[Your words on Ni Doorslam]

Whose Ni doorslam, yours, or mine? A Ni doorslam is not simply the arousal of skepticism in response to suspicion of deceit: a Ni doorslam is a permanent emotional withdrawal from a situation, usually in response to and resulting from hurt and an end to communication, respectively. So if I had Ni high in my stack and doorslammed you, then I would barely be responding to you (which I'm not) nor would I be as engaged as I am. I do apologize if I seemed cold all of a sudden!

-Duxwing

 

[Kuu]

You fools.

This. Is. Siberia! Land of imprisonment and silence and loneliness.


How can the prisoner reflect on his failures if he's not left to enjoy his solitary confinement? Specially when the prisoner at hand has issues with turning all conversations into tests.

Didn't anyone see the sign? Do not talk to the prisoners.



Thread closed.

 

[Absurdity]

Duxwing, you are to be released from Siberia sometime tomorrow.

In the meantime, here are the conditions of your release, which you are to comply with until explicitly told otherwise.

The Conditions of Duxwing's Release​

Rules

• No derailing threads. All posts must be directly related to the OP. Unrelated questions and tangents are to be relegated to visitor messages, private messages, or threads of their own.

• No unsolicited grammatical or otherwise stylistic advice referring to a user's form of written expression.

• No initiation of debate where one is not explicitly already present unless the involved parties consent to such beforehand in the respective thread (i.e. you must ask permission).

• Exception to the above: Debate is always permitted in the "Formal Debates" subforum. Engagement in debate is also permitted if the thread title or OP declares the respective thread to be a debate.

• No repetitive demands for clarification. If a user does not respond to the first query, the issue must be dropped.

• Adhere to the other rules of the forum, located here.

Consequences and Procedure

• Violation of any of the above rules will result in expedient re-exile to Siberia or a temporary ban of 24 hours (at the issuing mod's discretion). The violating post will be immediately deleted.

• Repeated violation of the above rules will result in escalating severity of consequences, including confinement to one or more subforums, multi-day, multi-week, or permanent banishment from the realm.

• Clarification on any of these guidelines may be requested given the request is concise (less than 100 words).

• Mods are free to amend these rules as they see fit, including in response to good behavior.

"Advice"

• You have no legitimate "right" to demand people make themselves comprehensible to you. You can ask them, nicely, but they do not have to comply, and their answer may be unsatisfactory. That's life.

• Less is more. Respond to the key points of someone's post, not every single one. Ignore trolls.

• Most people, believe it or not, do not come here to debate, hence why the "Formal Debates" subforum is dead. You are free to attempt to revive it, though.

• Disagreements do not warrant starting a debate. Learn not to engage and to agree to disagree. Not every conflict of opinion requires a winning and losing opinion be determined.

• Even if in the middle of a debate, do not prompt people to reply to you or keep engaging with you in the debate if they have not done so themselves.

• Respect that not everyone wants (you) to apply rigorous logical standards to their words and may prefer a more relaxed style of communication.