You people

Post Reply New Topic

that was a joke about me. Not serious.

I wanted to put if you read it you will understand me better. But I cannot be 100% sure. So I put might. Because, just because you read a personality blurb about someone doesn't mean you will understand them better. It was not an attempt to undermine your confidence or be sneaky or manifest my contempt or escalate a conflict. I was mostly just because I don't like to use the wording if you do this... this will happen... I mean its just too strong of an assumption. You could read it and still not understand me. I could read all about INFJs and still not understand you. Heck, I read poetry and I don't understand any of it. I can do real analysis and can't solve a rubik's cube to save my life. So I don't like to insinuate that if you read something about me then you will figure out where I am coming from. but you might. or you might not. For the same reason that knowing I might have Asperger's might help someone understand where I am coming from, but I can't guarantee it will.

not that I mind that much. I have been called worse. That and I don't particularly find much of what you say to be offensive. Which is why I haven't called you anything back. But I find it hard to believe that you would qualify any of my comments as personal attacks while still claiming that yours are not. And it is part of why Abangyarudo considered your posts contradictory. And why I didn't take them all that seriously. Because your behavior patterns fit the same behavior patterns of certain people in my family. And since you do use implied meaning, it is fair to say that you are using the same conflict tactics that they use. Which is fine. it just means you are using conflict tactics I am very accustomed to dealing with.

And as my husband has stated that there is not nice alternate word for delusional I will merely state that your continued belief (that I imply indirect meanings despite the fact that I tell you I am not) is false, a misconception, or erroneous. (I was intending the misjudgement definition of delusional and not the crazy in the head definition)

Thank you. That is (in my opinion) the entire point of pheonixiis' argument. - The basis for the tread is hypocritical.

Last edited by wrongthinking on 15 Jan 2009, 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think there is a missing premise here. There are many kinds of intent. In this case we are looking for conscious vs unconscious intent.
Human beings are complex. We all have subconscious motivations that we like to hide from ourselves.
It is much more comfortable to rationalize behavior than to admit (at the cost of our self perception) to motivations that we would be ashamed of. Your first response is to simply say "that's not what I meant". This is a topic that is very strong in my life.
I am still amazed sometimes when I sit back and say: "Hypothetically, if that were my motivation, would that explain some of the other problems/ misunderstandings in the situation?" This is how I can more objectively look at hidden motivations without emotion and self image clouding my judgment of myself. It is impossible to be truely objective about oneself.

To start a thread admonishing people for any particular action is to open yourself up to scrutiny. Lurking somewhere in the portions of your subconscious that you are not proud of you will probably find that you are trying like mad to discredit Phoenixiis because you fear she is right. More specifically, you fear what it would mean about you if she was, and therefore deny it, because it is not who you want to be.
I could be wrong. But I have seen in this tread how she accurately predicted your reaction to opposition based on a premise. This means the premise shouldn't be cast out because it is uncomfortable, but looked at at length, privately to objectively see how much of it may be true.

Thank you. That is (in my opinion) the entire point of pheonixiis' argument. - The basis for the tread is hypocritical.[/quote]

I can see that some people are offended by the thread. I fail to see how the basis of the thread is hypocritical. I can see that people want it to be hypocritical so they can dismiss it. Much in the same way people try to find some fault with another person so they can dismiss their points in an argument as well. You're hypocritical/ugly/fat/old/young/religious/not-religious/man/woman/fill-in-the-blank. I am not sure why.... very few people disagree with the points (provided that they apply to other people), they just don't want to be called out on anything. Criticism is usually dismissed on some random basis so one does not have to confront it and it appears that most people think that no one should say anything unless they are perfectly spotless (which would lead to no one ever saying anything about anything).

And if the basis of pheonixiis' argument was that the thread is hypocritical, her argument would be 2-3 sentences long. The basis of her argument is to develop a strategy to incite me to attack her so that the thread would then be hypocritical, and everyone could disregard it. In the absence of me actually attacking her, I suppose she could just insist I am implying secret sneaky covert attacks and that I am secretly, sneakily, and covertly attacking her and therefore the thread is hypocritical and everyone could disregard it.

Either way, people will disregard the thread for some reason, because they don't want to admit that it is true. One reason is as good as another.

As for her criticism of me. If you disregard the parts that are dependent on an erroneous assumption that I use implied attacks. There is not really much left. What is left is a little useful, but nothing I haven't heard before and most I am currently working on (colloquial v. dictionary definition, neutral v. negative connotations, etc. ).

Last edited by Shiggily on 15 Jan 2009, 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

she didn't really accurately predict my reaction. She predicted a vague reaction and then forced the meaning into what I said. She predicted that I would insult her. And then she stated that I was insulting her based on what she interpreted from my statements. Its circular reasoning. And I am not discrediting her. Just wondering about why she would approach the thread in the way she did. It is like a zoologist stating that bears will attack you and then repeatedly poking the bear in the hopes that the bear would in some way snap (and when the bear moves the zoologist says "look they were going to snap at me" and assumed the move as a threat) in order to prove the hypothesis.

Why would I fear something I already admit to doing on occasion? I already stated that occasionally I will allow emotion into arguments and that I do not like to (and haven't for some time now) because it does nothing to further the argument and produces results contrary to what I seek in debates, arguments, and discussions.

And it is very difficult to look objectively at an argument presented almost entirely on someone's faulty assumptions of your character. And once you separate the material presented from the assumptions and the repetition and the psychological game playing... there isn't much left to look at.

the basis of the statement is hypocritical on phoenix's part. I'm saying she has presented no logical fact that shes been attacked and is only using misperception of comments to support her argument. Instead of saying this is why its offensive. So in the end it puts more phoenix in that boat and second of all the whole thought of I can do it since I have different objectives is highly hypocritical. So now on to bigger questions why involve me to try and get a rise out of me?

That is of course an assumption its like me saying. I assume you hate me because I'm sexy you can't prove you don't but in the end its probably far from the truth so depending on reasoning based in assumption is illogical. So hence I would rather focus on what we know.

I think its more emotional reasoning compared to logical reasoning. I think in those instances there is a natural dissadvantage in communication. While logical thinkers will use whatever words fit emotional reasoners will use words that have a more positive social meaning. So when a logical person speaks emotional reasoners immediatly put an intention behind it that is not there. The whole subconcious mind thing is also an assumption for the reason that its something we can't predict in reality while you think she may be thinknig of insulting phoenix she may be just thinking "wow this turtle porn is hot!! !!" but again since we can't predict it with clarity it doesn't work as an acutal proof of anything.

My exs have been emotionally based while I have been logically based. I think there is some truth behind Tony Attwood's claim that people with Asperger's perfer partners who are more emotionally based. Anyway that causes a problem with communicating because I can say something with no intent behind it and they push an intent on it thats not there. Example:

EX: hey baby come here a second

ME: ok I'll be there in a sec when I get to a save point.

EX: why you so grouchy

ME: I wasn't grouchy I said I'd be right there.

EX: Forget it its not a big deal.

I just sit there confused and shrug.

PS: No accurate predictions it just seemed as a mass of oversenistivity. If she lived in the places where I lived she wouldn't have survived. In the end though your assuming intent which is illogical and using faulty assumptions assumed as true to make your point which puts you in the same class as the phoenix and seemingly an emotional reasoner hence not much logical objective (Which a emotional reasoner can't really describe anything they do as) data supports your assumptions.

I disagree in part. I think logical reasoners should be careful to pick their words better, and to explain themselves. It is a give and take. You cannot merely say "this is the way I am, so deal with it". Then no one would get along. You say "this is the way I am, and this is what I can give up and this is how I can change". And the other person does the same thing. And you meet halfway.

I agree with you there but I think the point I'm trying to get across is that we're at a natural disadvantage in communicating I think (this is a broad generalization I know) but emotional reasoners will always assume some intent behind the words of the speaker. I think to them its varying degrees and since logical reasoners don't take into account the negative (societal) meaning behind words it puts them at odds since the emotional reasoners will assume malicious intent.

you can't expect a discussion amongst human beings to lack an emotional component. 99.9% or so of ALL HUMANS (even aspies, yes) have feelings. they inescapably affect, to varying degrees depending on the person and the situation, our perceptions and our choices. trying to communicate with people, therefore, without making allowances for emotion and including it as part of the communication to be understood means there are going to be problems.

for example....say i learned a foreign language like russian, but decided that i didn't think inflection was an important component so didn't take the time to learn about where inflection was necessary, and how. then suppose i went and tried to have a conversation with a native speaker.....how much of what he was really saying do you think i would comprehend? in some languages, changing the inflection of a word can change it's entire meaning (like english, for example). because i have deemed a component of the communication unimportant without acknowledging that it is a component for almost everyone else who speaks it, i will always find it difficult to effectively communicate in that language.

so emotion is a valid and essential component of human communication, because it is an inescapable part of our nature and our daily lives. now, is it ok to be ridiculously emotional in discussions and simply insult anyone who disagrees with you, or become abusive and abrasive? of course it's not, and any sensible person knows this. it's all about personal responsibility and maturity. if we are adults, we should be expected to conduct ourselves as adults. this is a given, is it not? the sort of people who sling personal insults and derogatory language around on the internet like it was going out of style are the sort of people who are not going to respond rationally to a post like this. so why make it in the first place? what was the point, other than to say something obvious that we (responsible, rational, sensible people) all know already? yes, name-calling is bad and shouldn't be done. mature, respectful discussion is good. let's move on from the obvious now.