Journal Chacham's Journal: Time to bash Some Woman 27
Some Woman had a jounal entry about marriage. This is in response to the entry and related comments.
Proponents of marriage argue that the vows of marriage cement your love and show that you are committing your life to this one person.
That is one argument, and not based on religious moral grounds. Another argument is simply a belief that men and women should not be with one another until they are married. And people should get married so they don't try to be with one another. Considering marriage is a religious thing, I'd have to say that this is the better argument.
Nobody has been able to, to my satisfaction, explain to me how this same end cannot be achieved by professing your love to someone and moving in together.
Simple, marriage is a commitment. Commitment makes people take things more seriously.
Further, in a story I linked to an article in a previous journal entry, When living together, he said, the attitude is "I vow to stay together with you as long as you make me happy." In a marriage, people focus on making their partners happy.
"If you're used to viewing being together as a test of the other person's ability to take care of your needs, once you get married it's hard to just switch that," Horn said.
Think about it: do I really "trust" my love in the hands of an institution that can be destoyed
The institution is not destroyed. The government recognition of it is.
(At least this would explain the 50+% divorce rate.)
Not at all. Marriage has been around for thousands of years, and the divorce rate was nowhere near this. The high divorce rate has been linked to (though the link has not been proven) to the fact that people live together before marriage, or who don't have religious beliefs.
He went on about this concept at great length. I was feeling a little queasy at points.
Too bad. (Normally, this may be a sign of low self-esteem.) When I see someone making a remark contrary to what I "know". I laugh at them. If you can laugh, it shows that you believe in your opinion, and not their's. (Though it has nothing to do with the veracity of the comment itself.)
Little known fact: according to god's will, thou shalt not wear clothing woven of two cloths.
Only when the two cloths are wool and linen. Pretty rare case.
I think I'll submit only to myself, thanks much.
That's not called submitting. That's called doing what you want. You may submit some desires to other desires, though.
On this note, I respect people who write or select their own vows, it shows that they are putting a lot of thought into the commitment.
It also shows their lack of respect for anyone other then themselves. They don't believe they should rely on what others have thought of. Only what they think is good.
It may be nice in addition though.
When you just recite the stuff straight from the book though, it seems kind of rote and meaningless.
True, unless you know what it means.
I would rather have a pleasant romantic evening together where we both profess to love each other forever, and then combine our respective belongings into one abode.
And where is the commitment? The force of the commitment makes people take it more seriously. Romantic evenings should happen afterwards. Thus, the honeymoon.
I would perhaps seek a legal union for the benefits entitled to one's partner, but I fail to see how that substantially alters the relationship.
Agreed.
The relationship changes when you decide to be each other's partner for life, not when you've got the sheet of paper.
In a sense. But better put, when you "commit".
Instead of rings, show your commitment to each other by adopting a dog together.
Rings are not needed. Anyone know where rings started? Background is that the Bible says a man should "take" his wife. So, it requires an action (one of three). The common one (in Judaism) is "buying". If something cheap is used, the women would not "accept" it. I don't know where the ring started, but something nice was always used.
Christianity probably got rings from Judaism but dropped the reason. Thus, I don't think rings are needed at all.
Showing your "commitment" by buying a dog, would not do anything. It is a nice action, and even nicer when done together, but it has nothing do do with commitment, other than being together. It may be a nice gesture for friends to do though. (I actually like that idea.)
No anniversaries. Why not be nice to each other every day
Because being nice takes a great emotional expenditure, and most people cannot do that every day. Well, in great amounts. Besides, it would likely become routine and be rather meaningless.
Instead, they should be nice to each other (or not be married!). But great strides should be made on anniversaries. Why? Well, I used to wonder about the purpose of anniversarizing the birth date of a friend. I finally realized that we all want to show appreciation to our friends. But it is hard to do every day. A thank you will do every day, but now and then we want to make great emotional (and financial) expenditures for them. It shouldn't happen too often though. So, once a year is fine. Doing it on the a person's birthday has the significance that you are saying, "I am happy that you were born." Sounds trivial at first, but it is actually one of the greatest compliments that can be given. I would apply the same reasoning to anniversaries of marriage. "I am glad that I married you."
Another reason, it that being extra-special gives a "booster shot" to your love. Once a year is a good time for that.
(comments)
The problem that I have is that religion should be absolutely separated from governmental operation. People could argue for days about what the framers of the constitution meant, but I think that it just makes good sense.
Wrong on two counts.
1) The framers had nothing to do with the first amendment. In fact, I think the "Bill of Rights" was a big mistake.
2) The amendment has nothing to do with separating religion and state. It merely allows for religious freedom by the state not recognizing any (specific) establishment. I would even say that the amendment would have been written differently had its writers realized how it would be used.
Marriage would be the union between two people as sanctioned by your religion. In marriage, you could have as many spouses as the religion deems necessary. Civil unions would be government recognized partnerships. At any given time, you could only have declared one partner.
That's silly. Why should the state be able to sanction monogamy? In fact, polygamy makes a whole lot for sense (many men, many women) like a group of people deciding to support each other.
Instead, the state should say in which contexts a unit (created by more than one person) is necessary, and let people apply for recognition. This way, the requirements would be simple, and tied to the purpose. Whether the purpose be for taxes, adoption, or whatever else requires more than one person.
This would make a distinction between that ever so holy sacred institution that shalt not be tarnished and the institution which grants people certain rights and priviledges.
Agreed.
Think about it. If it is the government defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then these people are arguing that the legal definition of marriage should not be changed because of what the legal definition of marriage is. This does not make sense. The only other place where I see a definition of marriage is religion.
The other area where it is defined, is in how poeple see marriage. If marriage is seen as a recognition of a union, then you are correct; it is defined by religion. However, others see marriage as a place where children can be raised, in that, some would argue that both a man and a woman should be around for the child.
Also, I believe that the government does not recognize unions as much as they recognize existing marriage. In other words, marriage is a religious union, and the state decided to recognize it. Thus, in that, the government cannot change marriage. They can merely drop it and recognize an alternative form of union.
Here's the problem (Score:1)
I think it is a matter of perception. Some people will live with every girfriend they have for more than two months. For me, cohabitating is more meaningful than that. If I decide to live with somebody, that will mean that I have chosen him to be with me forever. And to me, that choice I make is more meaninful than all of the expensive caterers and flowers.
And I will always disregard studies showing that cohabitating leads to higher divorce rates. Of course it does. The type of people who live together are more likely to be independent and unneeding of society's approval. These people will be more likely to leave a miserable or abusive marriage, a marriage that by all accounts should not be saved. People who do not live together before marriage perhaps have more conservative morals and oppose divorce strongly. These people are more likely to tolerate verbal and physical abuse, as well as marriages that are just plain miserable and unfulfilling.
Comparing divorce rates now with divorce rates from years ago is also fallacious. It was okay to beat your wife in former decades, and, in many cases, a wife could not divorce her husband at all.
Reguarding the wedding vows: you said that writing your own vows shows a lack of respect for anyone other than themselves. Well, that's the way it should be. Marriage should be about the two people being wed. When you vow to love somebody forever in words that you wrote, the significance of the moment is that much more intense.
In short, your definition of commitment is arbitrarily defined by you to mean marriage. I question the wisdom of accepting a behavior simply because that is what we've always done.
Re:Here's the problem (Score:2)
That is why the wedding ceremony must be witnessed, be it a civil or religious event. The whole point is to declare the commitment publicly. Why? Because staying with someone through thick and thin requires quite a bit of backing up.
Why not make your own vows? The ones my wife and I used have worked since 1928, and in slightly different form for long before that. Actually, my wife and I have opinions very similar to yours. But, they led us to different conclusions than what you have reached.
We both felt being married (or committed might be a better word at this point in this piece) was far more important than getting married. Our minister agreed, and that's what much of our pre-marriage counselling centered on. As a matter of fact, from talking to other recently wed people, that's what it is most of the time. Actual discussion of the ceremony took about 10 minutes. Mostly "read the book, tell me if you want to change anything, pick your readings, and we'll go". Okay, not quite that flippant.
At the time we got married, we had a dog, a cat, and a mortgage. But it was painfully easy for either of us to have woken up in the morning and left. Perhaps by some mystical fate, some people can communicate their committment sans wedding. But it is incredibly rare. Far rarer than marriage. (And that's with actual, honest-to-goodness, picked out of my navel statistics).
FWIW, and I may differ vastly from my fellow slashdot religious nuts, I have absolutely no problem with same-sex marriage. I encourage it. I think one of the worst problems, at least with male homosexuals, is promiscuity (don't get me wrong, it's bad with heterosexuals, but homosexuals have had a promiscuous connotation for a long time. And one that is well earned. Read 'And the Band Played On...' or other books that touch on the gay community.) Monogamy is a good, stabilizing force. Even serial monogamy is preferred to the promiscuity practiced by many people (and in this instance, I am specifically making a blanket statement, without respect to sexual orientation, race, etc.)
The marriage penalty: it doesn't exist. At least not for me and my wife. The marriage penalty only occurs in certain specific situations where the boundaries of various tax brackets are not accurately drawn.
And about the dog: we have one. Her name is Starr. We had her about two years prior to marriage. We love her very much. But we'll be married long after the dog is gone. I think the cat will live forever, if only to spite my wife.
In rereading your comment, it seems that you have a negative outlook on society in general. Perhaps I am wrong, but you stated, either here or in another journal, that you are only 21. I'm not surprised. If you let it, your views on many things will change drastically over the next five to ten years. I'm not saying that you will 'come around'. Just that you should be careful making absolute statements that will embarass you soon enough.
I just can't stop talking. Maybe after this next bit, I won't reread your comment again:)
I must reiterate that you seem to make a common mistake that many (my sister *cough, cough*) make: placing undue importance on the ceremony and party afterwards. The majesty is not the important thing. If it is, I agree: marriage is quite possibly doomed from the start. But making the promise, in full view of society (a word I choose particularly because of the observations I mentioned earlier) does carry a different connotation than one made in private between two people. Trust is a hard thing. It's much easier to prevaricate when you've said something in private. If you said something in public, you're held to it. (If you haven't, reread some of my journals about 5-6 weeks ago, and you'll learn more of what 'for better or worse' can mean).
And, since it was mentioned, let me touch on the first amendment: there shall be no official state religion. Think of the context during which this was written. Think of other countries. Roman Catholicism in Italy and Ireland. CoE in England. Judaism in Israel. Islam in Egypt. These are (or were) the officially tolerated and accepted religions. They get (got) extra state money. Or they were simply the only ones allowed to exist. Clearly, the religious portions of the first amendment meant that Baptists wouldn't get an extra seat on the city council just for Baptists; Jews are allowed to vote; not just Catholic churches are tax exempt. It does NOT mean that there are to be no manger scenes in front of town hall. It does NOT mean that we have a 'winter festival' instead of a Hanuakkah or Christmas party (ironically, a 'winter festival', as far as I'm concerned IS a pagan festival, therefore religious. But, since I have a fair bit of German blood, and I'm an easy-going guy, I don't complain:) The problem is in the relatively new world we have wherein there are so many declared atheists and agnostics. It is easy to let all Muslims, Christians, and Jews have their own holiday pageants, there is no way to be inclusive of those who deny all religion. What's the best way to deal with it? I'm not sure. Being inclusive and not specifically excluding any religion is a given. For me, not offending someone is not a task the government should be expected to do. So where is the middle ground? It seems to me that by having a 'winter festival' or 'no festival', the state has actually declared an official religion: agnosticism. I'll admit I don't have an answer to this one. Perhaps when I'm older and more curmudgeonly, I'll say "F*** the heathen". But for now, I'm trying to be sensitive.
Re:Here's the problem (Score:1)
If you recall, the original journal began because I couldn't understand opposition to same-sex marriage. I wondered why, if marriage is so important, we deny that opportunity to a considerable chunk of the population.
If you haven't, reread some of my journals about 5-6 weeks ago, and you'll learn more of what 'for better or worse' can mean
Yes, I've read about your wife. And I think you are staying with her for more reasons than getting a divorce is too hard. When you love somebody, you stay with them, married or not. I get what you're saying about public promises, though. It makes more sense than other people's explanations of why marriage is important.
you are only 21. I'm not surprised. If you let it, your views on many things will change drastically over the next five to ten years. I'm not saying that you will 'come around'. Just that you should be careful making absolute statements that will embarass you soon enough
I know. I have watched my views change drastically in the past few years. I preface many of my thoughts with a statement that I know I am young and have malable beliefs. When I write something, I am aware that those are the opinions I hold at that particular second, and perhaps only that second.
The journal in question had the following disclaimer: "I'm only 21, and might just be going through a rebellious stage." For the moment, I am trying out beliefs like one would try on clothing. I am seeing if "traditional beliefs" are justifiable, and if not, what I would change. Perhaps I will end up a married non-working mother of 6, but I would like that to be my own choice, not a decision based on "just because that's what you do."
it seems that you have a negative outlook on society in general.
Yes, I do. It seems to me that people do a lot of "just because"ing and not much explaining. I posed a question. I wondered aloud why people marry besides tradition, because I couldn't figure it out on my own. All of the comments on my journal and this thread have been helpful. Every piece of explanation I receive molds my frame of mind. Maybe I will "come around," but I'd rather do it my way.
Re:Here's the problem (Score:2)
One of the tricky parts with this is not getting lost in those changing beliefs. I was going to expand on this when I quoted the section, but the words are not coming to me.
It seems to me that people do a lot of "just because"ing and not much explaining.
Too right. Even as I encroach on 30, I sometimes find myself wondering if I believe something because of reason 'A', or is reason 'A' a mere justification of secret-to-myself reason 'B'. Then, if I am having a really bad case of insomnia, I'll get lost on the tangent 'does it matter that my real reason is "B" and not 'A'? For this particular belief, is a whimsical choice acceptable?' Some of these questions (or, more accurately, the questions that these questions hint at) are endemic to the human being, and have been asked and answered by many over the millenia. While some philosopher or school of thought may claim to have the answers, I am a firm believer that with things such as personal philosophies, reading about it and choosing from the menu is in no way a substitute for asking and answering those questions via your own experiences. From that viewpoint, taking the time to experience various viewpoints and decide on your own, as you seem inclined to do, seems to me the 'right' way to go about it. However, I also fear post-modernity a bit, and think that a thing can be over-analyzed. Our forebrain is great, but let's not forget that many nuggets of our actions are stored away much deeper, much older parts of the brain. (As an aside, I've got a theory on homosexual males vs. homosexual females that you might be interested in, from a purely academic viewpoint. Don't know if I agree with the theory, but... Maybe I'll post in my journal sometime) But the point is, there are some things that can't be intellectualized. They just are.
Let me provide an example: white people fear black people (I hope and expect you understand that I'm making arguments about generalities, thus must use generalities). Why, I don't know exactly. But this is a not totally far-fetched reason: white people crossed from Africa into Europe and Asia. Whether through Turkey or across the Mediterannean, or whatever. Why? Let's say it was one tribe fleeing from another. As they got farther north, they forget their black mothers and fathers, but remember the black tribe that hunted them (not totally far-fetched. Fear is a deeper and more important emotion than love). So, somewhere locked up in the amygdala of Europeans is the fear of black people. It carries through to today.
Now, that's a really poor example (dreadfully poor). You can see the holes that can be shot through it. But I hope that you see the tool. What tool? That some things are wired deeper than the concious can access.
To get back on some semblance of point: Good to keep looking to figure out what works for you, but just because you don't understand it (or the best explanation is 'just because', to use you words) doesn't mean that it is an invalid viewpoint.
Another thought... (Score:1)
I've been with my boyfriend for 6 years, the first two of which were a blissful honeymoon period. About two years ago, things became hard. Not just sort of unpleasant, but hard to the point that I wondered what I was doing in this relationship. 18 months ago was his first suicide attempt- it was just dumb luck that I encountered him in the process. The past couple of years have been very difficult- it would have been so easy to simply walk away at some points. But you don't just walk away because it becomes difficult to love somebody. If we were married, it would still be easier to divorce him. He has tried to convince me to take the path of least resistance. I have promised him that I am in this for the long-term, that I will be here no matter how difficult it becomes, and, to me, that is the most important promise. Maybe committing to each other publicly would make it more shameful to separate, but that would be the least of my concerns. I would worry more about the fact that I would have let him down. I know very well that love doesn't quit simply because it gets too hard; it doesn't take the easy way out. Things don't look like they will be getting better any time soon, but that's okay. In the grand scheme of things, our relationship is an infant. I hope that it makes it to adulthood.
I cannot see into the future, so I cannot tell you if we will be together in another six years, but, for now, every day is a new opportunity to remind myself why I'm here. I don't think it's necessary to pledge my love, for better or worse to a public crowd. What's more important is to mean it, whether you say it privately to yourself in the morning, or to your family and friends.
Re:Here's the problem (Score:1)
And, I can see it now. Your 2-month old is hungry and tries to be fed. After being unsuccessful, "Dad! Mom's not working again!".
Every piece of explanation I receive molds my frame of mind.
Ever think of producing Penicillin?
Anyway, I respect that. To learn from all is a praisable trait.
Re:Here's the problem (Score:1)
The marriage penalty only occurs in certain specific situations where the boundaries of various tax brackets are not accurately drawn.
Or in Hawaii. I believe that after a certain amount of income, when married, the tax rate is over 50%. It's been a while since I've watch C-SPAN.
Judaism in Israel.
Not quite. While it is a so-called "Jewish State", Judaism is not the "official" religion. Other relgions are tolerated. Christianity and Islam flourish there. There is much debate on the state's Jewish character. It is actually quite interesting to see the debates between the nature of the state and allowed religions. There are conflicts.
Re:Here's the problem (Score:2)
I'd be bored to tears if everyone agreed with everything I said all the time (although the world would be a better place;) All I ask is that they respond reasonably to arguments I make. Stay focused, avoid straw men, that sort of thing.
I read it somewhere, and disagreed with it, but I'll say it again: it is good and possible to 'agree to disagree'. There are certain times when two people will not see eye-to-eye. Generally it is in weighing things that people weight differently. (Low taxes vs. more roads as an example). At some point, further arguing does not achieve anything.
Need my GTA3 fix before bed....
Re:Here's the problem (Score:1)
I agree with that statement, but not with the outcome.
I think people should argue the point downwards. That is, break the complex arguments down to simple points, and the very assumptions that were before this unspoken. Chances are, an assumption was different. Further, if people break it down well enough, there is a point where they will end up agreeing. By finding the point where they agree, they know where the disagreement branched from. Then, they can either argue that, or, as you said, agree to weigh things differently.
That is not "agreeing to disagree." That is a cop-out, IMNSHO, and displays a will not to think. Instead, people should merely say, that logic is not the only thing being used to make judgements (T judgments), but that personal values are also used to make them (F judgments). By stating how each one values certain points, the disagreement can be understood.
To be nitpicky, even person A agrees that according person B's values, person B is correct in his conclusion. And vice-versa. Disagreement therefore is in personal values. Being we are all diffrent, we have different values, so this is expected sometimes.
Re:Here's the problem (Score:2)
Let's suppose I think the death penalty is wrong, while you think it is a good thing. We discuss/argue for months about it. No longer do I feel like engaging in the excercise. I respect your opinion, it works for you, but based on my thoughts/feelings/background, I don't have the same opinion. I agree that we shall disagree on this point until the end of time.
Perhaps a better situation is you like vanilla and I like chocalate. Hmm... I see where this is in fact different. This expresses a preference. But if you were to say "vanilla is a better flavor", that is actually a different situation...
Gonna have to think on this new revelation...
Re:Here's the problem (Score:1)
Probably.
I call it, seeing it from the other person's perspective, and realizing that it is valid. The reason I dislike "agree to disagree" is because it is used to end an argument prematurely. Instead, if the person wishes to no longer argue, then merely state that. In essence you're not agreeing to disagree, rather, you are agreeing to let it go.
Let's suppose I think the death penalty is wrong, while you think it is a good thing. We discuss/argue for months about it. No longer do I feel like engaging in the excercise. I respect your opinion, it works for you, but based on my thoughts/feelings/background, I don't have the same opinion. I agree that we shall disagree on this point until the end of time.
I would assume then, that the finer points and assumptions were not dealt with. Such as, what is the purpose of the penalty, and do we have the "right" to do it. If not, what "rights" do we have. With a good thinker, this process should (usually) not take very long.
I don't mind people saying that they wish to disengage from the argument. But that person should not walk away thinking that the argument is over. It is not. It is only over when the exact point of disagreement is found, or the two people agree.
This expresses a preference. But if you were to say "vanilla is a better flavor", that is actually a different situation...
Well, then "better" would have to be defined.
Personally, I like to think of statements (or ideas) being relevant in a realm. "Hot" does not apply to time; "Truth" does not apply to ice cream. Everything has it's realm. So, until the realm for "better" in ice cream is defined, the remark itself is left unqualified, and thusly undebatable (in a practical sense).
Re:Here's the problem (Score:2)
I would assume then, that the finer points and assumptions were not dealt with. Such as, what is the purpose of the penalty, and do we have the "right" to do it. If not, what "rights" do we have. With a good thinker, this process should (usually) not take very long.
Unfortunately, this (dealing with good thinker) does not often occur. By definition, most people are average. Compound this problem with the fact that even people who could generally be considered good thinkers are likely to have certain biases and emotional positions that preclude rationality in some arguments.
It's frequently not possible to get to the finer points of argument, and no, they will not be dealt with. In some (many) cases, I would say that it is more reasonable to end the argument 'prematurely'. While it may not be over, as you indicate, I would say that some arguments will never be over. I've known people with whom I could have a running argument/discussion for years. But most people will tire of this quickly, begin avoiding you, etc.
ideas and realms
What you say makes sense. However, again, most people are not willing/able to define the terms of their arguments.
Perhaps it's just the people I am around, but if I were to attempt to follow every argument to a conclusion that was mutually acceptable, I'm certain I would be suicidal from the futility.
Re:Here's the problem (Score:1)
Compound this problem with the fact that even people who could generally be considered good thinkers are likely to have certain biases and emotional positions that preclude rationality in some arguments.
Ah, that reminds me of one Democrat I used to argue with.
To be honest, I have one Democratic friend, who actually knows what he believes. He's actually the only thinking Democrat that I know of. He readily agrees or disagrees consistently and with reason.
In some (many) cases, I would say that it is more reasonable to end the argument 'prematurely'. While it may not be over, as you indicate, I would say that some arguments will never be over.
Yep. But I actually turn off to non-thinkers. Or just don't discuss such things with them.
However, again, most people are not willing/able to define the terms of their arguments.
Which is when I declare myself winner by default.
Perhaps it's just the people I am around, but if I were to attempt to follow every argument to a conclusion that was mutually acceptable, I'm certain I would be suicidal from the futility.
Heh. I laughed pretty hard when I first read that. You are correct.
Re:Here's the problem (Score:1)
I do not know for sure, but I suspect that was in some areas, for short periods of time. Most of the world did allow divorces. Or, groups of people would come to help the battered wife.
Yes, bad things have happened, but I believe the percentage is pretty small, and hardly enough to destroy the comparison.
Err. . . (Score:2)
- Because being nice takes a great emotional expenditure, and most people cannot do that every day. Well, in great amounts.
Speak for yourself, I find it incredibly difficult (and I feel like shit, heh) to NOT be nice to everybody that I meet.In fact making people I care about feel nice
Just change the way your mind places with its inputs and you can accomplish darn near miracles.
- Besides, it would likely become routine, and be rather meaningless.
Hmm, reminds me of something you said. .When you just recite the stuff straight from the book though, it seems kind of rote and meaningless.
True, unless you know what it means.
That and there are
It does not require that much work, and it actually turns into a fun little game. Thinking up of new ways to entertain/enliven people.
Edits + Corrections (Score:1)
Make that "the way the mind plays with inputs. . .
Yeesh
Re:Err. . . (Score:1)
I was not talking about just being nice. I was talking about doing something very nice, from the giver.
People who are nice very day show a but a love every day. But that very love becomes the "standard" and people who receive it from this person no longer see it as love. Rather, it is seen as routine. (Even though routine from such a person has more love than average.) For this person to show someone that they are *really* special, it would call for even greater emotional (and physical) output. It is unlikely that this could be sustained on a daily basis.
Just change the way your mind places with its inputs and you can accomplish darn near miracles.
How true. Can you imagine how beautiful it would be if everyone realized that?
Hmm, reminds me of something you said. .
Good catch.
However there is a big difference. If the former, it becomes meaningless because of two reasons that do not apply in the latter case:
1) It becomes routine, not that the love is removed from it. It is still there. But such love no longer expresses "specialness".
2) It becomes meaningless to the receiver, not neccesarily to the giver.
In the latter case, the main point is that the reader is expressing their devotion. It is actually more important to the reciter, than to the person being recited too. As such, even though the other person hears the same thing, if the reciter understand and means it, it is all-right.
That and there are
A creative mind in these areas. While everyone is creative, it is in their own areas. If someone who is not creative in these areas took your advice, it would likely backfire. Not that you shouldn't do it. It seems to be right for you, and I hope you appreciate your special talents.
It does not require that much work, and it actually turns into a fun little game. Thinking up of new ways to entertain/enliven people.
As an introverted NT, that would take all the fun out of life, and remove all my energy. I must be alone with my ideas. The more I spend time with others, the more drained I feel. (Unless they are the appropriate friend for that particular moment.) Some people show little emotion to a lot of people, some show much emotion to a few people. The unitegrated person show little emotion (if any) to a few people. And only the very, very rare have the emotional wherewithal to show much emotion to a lot of people. And even then, it takes a toll on there physical well-being.
Re:Err. . . (Score:1)
- As an introverted NT,
As am I, but let me tell you something about introverts.Introverts can understand people far better then anybody else can
Let me give you a bit from my chat log of a conversation I had yesterday.
---start log---
Com2Kid says:
Thoughts do no good if you do not understand the emotions that cause them.
^_^
xy says:
yeah but thoughts can bring you success
Com2Kid says:
but it is easier to change thought then emotion!
xy says:
emotions don't
Com2Kid says:
hehe yes they do; emotions CREATE your thoughts
if you can manipulate your emotions
then you can make any thought you want
But if you can just play around with thoughts
then whatever your emotions limit you too, you will never be able to bypass
xy says:
yeah
Com2Kid says:
that is why when ever I think anything I first go
"what in my life makes me thing that"
Then I am able to ask myself
"Ok, that is why I am biased in that way, so what is the real truth?"
Without that I could not understand other people
because I would be letting my emotions
interfere with what I was thinking about them.
---end log---
I believe that a person must be able to understand themselves before they can understand others. Once you understand yourself fully and have admitted and know all your faults, then NOTHING in this world can stop you are harm you or do anything to you because you know yourself fully.
Being able to understand yourself fully then allows you to take a step back away from situations and look at how other people are interacting with you because you can then understand them without emotions biasing your mind. Well the bias is still there, but you KNOW it is there so you can subtract it yourself, it is like knowing that you have a list of numbers and that all numbers have had 5 reduced from them, so to get the true value of the set you just add five to each number.
Yes playing around with people like this is immensely tiring and a HUUUGE emotional strain, but my God it feels good to be able to do it. It is like the exhilaration that comes from understanding a new math concept or when you first realized exactly how vast and complex and amazing the human biological system was, it is an amazing feeling.
My current methos of working is to create psychological and emotional dependency complex from people towards me so that they need me around as much as possible. Job security.
It is also handy in that because I am a Nerd and I have worked on creating that "standing out from the rest of society" look, (and for a variety of other reasons) people tend to trust me with their deepest secrets. I get a lot of opportunities to help a lot of people, and there is not a much better feeling then rooting around in the depths of a human soul for some little secret and bringing it to light allowing it to be vanquished.
As I said, ya gotta understand yourself before you can understand others. Extroverts never will get beyond to far of a level of understanding. They may be able to see and know about human motivations but they will never be able to understand what causes those motivations. It is the entire "why do you worry so much about fashion????" thing all over again, except for this time, with enough meditation upon the topic, you WILL be able to know why other people care about fashion and crud, there are firm psychological reasoning behind it all. You will not be able to
-
/sooo/ many ways to be nice to people, a creative mind can come up with at least a few new ones each day. :-D
I was talking about the bleeming candy store.That and there are
A creative mind in these areas. While everyone is creative, it is in their own areas. If someone who is not creative in these areas took your advice, it would likely backfire. Not that you shouldn't do it. It seems to be right for you, and I hope you appreciate your special talents.
I recently found a nice little shop that sells a large variety of little trinkets, the sheer number of different types of things in the store should keep me occupied for quite some time.
Re:Err. . . (Score:1)
As am I, but let me tell you something about introverts.
You're an NT? From your comment, I'd guess that you were an INFP. Being an IFP, you can use your N to understand motivations, and your S to tap into physical creativity. I'd guess that you were a P. But you don't sound like any INTPs that I know.
Introverts can understand people far better then anybody else can
I think you are mixing up Introversion with iNtuition. an ENFP can understand people far better than an ISTP.
It is the N preference that let's us understand things more clearly. In fact, Es may have an advantage at times, simply because they see more people.
Thoughts do no good if you do not understand the emotions that cause them.
Utter rubbish. Thoughts cause action, emotions do not. Emotions may cause thought (which then cause action), and in that they are powerful, but in the end it is our thoughts that dominate. Many people supress there emotions to gain acceptance (especially NFs). In that, thought completely outrules emotion.
Although, the line between emotion and thought may be hard to define.
hehe yes they do; emotions CREATE your thoughts
if you can manipulate your emotions
then you can make any thought you want
Actually, that's called "supressing" emotions.
But if you can just play around with thoughts
then whatever your emotions limit you too, you will never be able to bypass
I don't know. As an NT, I allow my thoughts to dominate my emotions in most cases. An F may act in the way that you prescribed, but not a T.
Then I am able to ask myself
"Ok, that is why I am biased in that way, so what is the real truth?"
That is commendable. I hope to emulate that some day (soon).
I believe that a person must be able to understand themselves before they can understand others.
This is not true. A person does not have to understand themselves before understanding others.
Personally, I also understand others people through myself. I ask, "Why would I (want to) do that?" Then I feel it out. I have had much success with this method. It is probably a useful tool for all INs, but certainly not required.
Once you understand yourself fully
Something that takes (at least) half your life.
I have been spending many years (probably close to 20) trying to understand myself, and there is still more to go. I cannot believe that I am more "complex" than anybody else.
and have admitted and know all your faults,
Who defines faults? And, if you think you know *all* your faults, then you have at least one more.
then NOTHING in this world can stop you are harm you or do anything to you because you know yourself fully.
Sorry, but I must laugh at you. Nothing wrong with you, but it's the NF self-actualization garbage that I find to be hilarious.
I do agree that a mature person can rarely be emotionally hurt. But that is only when they do not get involved. Further, people need other people, and to rely on oneself is nonsense and will lead to one's own downfall.
Being able to understand yourself fully then allows you to take a step back away from situations and look at how other people are interacting with you because you can then understand them without emotions biasing your mind. Well the bias is still there, but you KNOW it is there so you can subtract it yourself, it is like knowing that you have a list of numbers and that all numbers have had 5 reduced from them, so to get the true value of the set you just add five to each number.
I disagree whole-heartedly. And I have spent much time thinking about this.
The mere fact that you wear a style of people-created clothes, or that you speak a people-created language, means that you percieve the world in a people-created fashion. And anyone who sees the world in a people-created fashion, is extremely biased, much more than you may think.
If you were born in the wild and lived many years, and came to a philosophical understanding of everthing before you saw anyone else, then I might believe that you are unbiased enough to actually "understand" people in an unbiased manner. Other than that, you would need an unbiased guide. Simply removing your own bias (relatively impossible) will not do.
If you'd like to argue this point, and I would, please start a journal entry so we can go through it. I'm already salivating.
Yes playing around with people like this is immensely tiring and a HUUUGE emotional strain, but my God it feels good to be able to do it. It is like the exhilaration that comes from understanding a new math concept or when you first realized exactly how vast and complex and amazing the human biological system was, it is an amazing feeling.
I don't see how playing around with others has an emotional strain. Well, at least it doesn't to me. Being I approach it from a much more analytical perspective, I get great pleasure out of it with little emotional expenditure.
My current methos of working is to create psychological and emotional dependency complex from people towards me so that they need me around as much as possible. Job security.
Not a bad idea. However, *that* would have to high an emotional price on me. Rather, I create databases that are so simple, that my work is sought after again.
It is also handy in that because I am a Nerd and I have worked on creating that "standing out from the rest of society" look, (and for a variety of other reasons) people tend to trust me with their deepest secrets.
When I was in high-school, many people trusted me with their secrets. Not so much because I was a "nerd" but much more because I respected them, and people knew that I wouldn't reveal anything to anyone. In fact, if the "nerd" aspect was part of the decision, I could only see it as a con.
I get a lot of opportunities to help a lot of people, and there is not a much better feeling then rooting around in the depths of a human soul for some little secret and bringing it to light allowing it to be vanquished.
Ah, the true NF. We need more of you. There are not enough NFs in the world.
As I said, ya gotta understand yourself before you can understand others.
And as I said, this is misplaced.
Extroverts never will get beyond to far of a level of understanding. They may be able to see and know about human motivations but they will never be able to understand what causes those motivations.
Obviously you have never met a healthy ENFP before. I have been talking to one lately, and he has a keen understanding of motivations and their causes. I just started him on Keirsey's book, and I hope to have more wonderful discusions with him.
Just to recap, in case I am giving off an incorrect impression. I enjoy this conversation. I am not attacking you. I am attacking the arguments. That gives me great pleasure. I hope you can enjoy it too.
Re:Err. . . (Score:1)
Of course while I think the Keirsey test is a great test, the website;s maintainer's views on some, err, 'other' topics is bullshit. I have a serious desire to slap anybody who thinks ADHD doesn't exist.
I do remember my test results though, dedicated iNTp.
Of course upon receiving the results of the test and reading up on iNTp' and about their flaws and oft repeated mistakes, I was then able to further adjust my own personality in the ways that I desired to.
Ah, yes, now dealing with the emotions thing.
When I use emotions I am stuck using a word that does not fully convey what I am trying to say.
What I mean is that you have to fully understand past events and experiences in your life in order to know how they are biasing your thoughts. Think of how psychologists find the source of a person's fear, but take that same concept and go one step further.
That is what I am speaking of, by my use of the word 'emotions' in my previous posting I was trying to refer to the underlying set of thoughts that dominates what we think in our fully conscious mind.
- "Why would I (want to) do that?" Then I feel it out.
I am surprised that technique worked for you, many NTs have troubles grasping why people would everSome times it is something as simple as Marketers selling something to people (then you have to figure out why people listen to Marketers and why Marketers want to sell something that may not be good for people then you have to figure out why there is such a strong desire to gain more and more money even at the expense of the social good and so forth, and eventually you just gotta admit that some natural desires that where previously good for the species are now royally f*cked up after being forced into our 'modern day' culture.)
- Obviously you have never met a healthy ENFP before. I have been talking to one lately, and he has a keen understanding of motivations and their causes.
I have yet to meet an extrovert who does anything but get up, go to work, get off work, buy the latest shit they are supposed to buy, and (maybe) occasionally get pissed about something and go off on some piddily ass riot (ala WTO).The term 'sheep' comes to mind. . . bleck. Necessary to keep the work force up I guess. .
(yah yah yah I know that is utter bullshit, but I don't feel like fully explaining why I don't like extroverts right now, heh. That is between me and my meditation time.
- When I was in high-school, many people trusted me with their secrets. Not so much because I was a "nerd" but much more because I respected them, and people knew that I wouldn't reveal anything to anyone.
I still get that in college. People tell me everything. Weird at times, but I finaly spent a good deal of time working on it and I think I just about have it figured out.Nerds are outside of the regular social boundaries, we do not dress according to 'how we should' we do not ask questions according to 'how we should' and we do not always say thing according to 'how we should'.
In other words we have a stronger tendency to exist at least partially outside of the normal social framework, (which, as an aside, can often times give us greater mobility in doing things. Yaah!).
I have met many people who do not trust their 'everyday' 'friends' with the truth of things, but they will easily talk go a Nerd, as we are. . . different. They know that any advice we give will not be us trying to get laid, f*ck around with their minds to have a good time, told to tons of other people, and that anything they say to us will not be laughed at, scorned, insulted, or put down.
Honesty man, shoot. But the
-
:-D
Huh? They are one in the same. The soul must be rooted around in in order for dependencies to be created. Well the stronger dependencies anyways, of course I can create transient dependencies that will only last as long as I am there to occasionally bolster them up without going that far into things.Yes playing around with people like this is immensely tiring and a HUUUGE emotional strain, but my God it feels good to be able to do it. It is like the exhilaration that comes from understanding a new math concept or when you first realized exactly how vast and complex and amazing the human biological system was, it is an amazing feeling.
I don't see how playing around with others has an emotional strain. Well, at least it doesn't to me. Being I approach it from a much more analytical perspective, I get great pleasure out of it with little emotional expenditure.
My current methos of working is to create psychological and emotional dependency complex from people towards me so that they need me around as much as possible. Job security.
Not a bad idea. However, *that* would have to high an emotional price on me. Rather, I create databases that are so simple, that my work is sought after again.
- The mere fact that you wear a style of people-created clothes, or that you speak a people-created language, means that you percieve the world in a people-created fashion. And anyone who sees the world in a people-created fashion, is extremely biased, much more than you may think.
well yah, but I am dealing with, err, people. Heh.One can always isolate the sources of bias from things though.
Clothing? Make a list of what you consider different clothing to 'do'. Do you prefer mini-skirts on females? Pink, blue? (I am more of a long flowing robes type of a man myself, or long dresses, preferably with native designs or patterns on them of some type of another, though of course what is defined as being 'native designs' is in itself a complex topic that has a lot of originating source biases of it itself. Nifty.
When you see some particular piece of clothing that strikes you a particular way, take a bit of time to figure out why it caused that reaction in you. Was it because some character you liked in a book you read wore something similar? After escapism in literature? Keep on going on, where did that escapism come from, and so forth. Eventually you will get to the root cause of it and to the base human drive underneath. Once you have that down, you then know why you think something in particular.
- Actually, that's called "supressing" emotions.
Nope! But they are commonly confused.Instead of {re/sup}pressing emotions (which does NOT work, eventually shit WILL BLOW UP IN YOUR FACE !) you can instead just. . . let them go.
For years I tried to suppress my anger instead of, err, well, beating the shit out of people. Therapy and schooling to help with my self control helped the situation a bit, but I would still eventually get pissed and go after someone. As I put it the 'water would pour over the flood gates."
Nobody has infinite control of their emotions, given enough continual build up of emotional stimuli, sooner or later you will react.
So just let it go.
That is it. Don't repress your emotions, just . . . I know it sounds kooky and all, like how to fly, fall and forget what you are doing. That is basically what I am saying, just. . .
White space. ^_^
*notes that the above message gave spellcheck.net migraines*
Re:Err. . . (Score:1)
A couple notes.
1) This is not a demand, it is simply a request, which you may or may not abide by (so many poeple get angry when I ask this). Please refrain from using expletives when arguing with me.
2) Please take the test again. I know a few INTPs. Both the texts (Keirsey, Meyers-Briggs) and the poeple I know would point to you not being an INTP. In fact, your responses indicate INFP. I know at least two INFPs, and from reading, you show the classic signs. This has nothing to do with balance, but more of that when I respond.
3) Keirsey said there is no such thing as ADHD. Mostly because people drug kids diagnosed with it. FWIW, I agree with him whole-heartedly. I was also drugged with Ritalin when I was in school. I had no such disorder. I was just plain bored in school. SPs usually feel the same way. It is a real shame when they are diagnosed.
Re:Err. . . (Score:1)
Sorry, LOL! English has such a cruddy modifier system for words, adding extra emphasis to words can be a pain at times. ^_^
3) Keirsey said there is no such thing as ADHD. Mostly because people drug kids diagnosed with it. FWIW, I agree with him whole-heartedly. I was also drugged with Ritalin when I was in school. I had no such disorder. I was just plain bored in school. SPs usually feel the same way. It is a real shame when they are diagnosed.
While it is a shame that you where falsely diagnosed, going around and saying that you know what it in other people's minds is... feh. Annnyways, trust me, it DOES exist. When no matter how interested you are in something, no matter how much you want to learn it you find yourself unable to pay attention, and you talk so fast that nobody is able to understand you, your leg is always tapping your fingers are always moving and you are already in honors classes and / or a grade or so ahead of where you would normally be;
that isn't boredom, that is ADHD.
When you sit down at a table and cannot do more then one or two math problems at a time, or find yourself reading a book while running in circles or hanging up side down, or cannot go to sleep at night because your mind is racing along about senseless stuff at 2am in the morning, and so on and so forth ad infinium.
and when it happens every single day and you have an IQ of 156 but lose focus in the middle of the teachers sentence when she is giving out the homework assignment because you just thought of an interesting though;
That isn't boredom, that is ADHD.
Re:Err. . . (Score:1)
It was also free very recently. It's in his book though, and other places online have some tests.
I have a serious desire to slap anybody who thinks ADHD doesn't exist.
Keirsey is a psycologist. He worked in schools, and with kids diagnosed with ADHD. After helping them (making everyone realize they were just SPs) he came to the conclusion that ADHD was a farce, and drugging the kids was a crime. Kid doesn't act well, "let's drug him". He also points out how these drugs did not have any rigorous testing on their longtime effects.
I am not a psycologist, and I have not seen enough cases. Overall, however, I agree with him and have seen misdiagnosed cases. I also have a tendency to avoid drugs (except in extreme cases), and I believe in redirecting children's energies rather than suppressing them (with drugs). So, my gut feeling is to agree with him. He has a pamphlet on the subject that may be worth reading.
I do remember my test results though, dedicated iNTp.
I will have to doubt that. Not your test results, but your type. Your comments are indicative of INFP. Regardless of what you are, you're responses here are INFP, and as such, I will treat Com2Kid as one.
Of course upon receiving the results of the test and reading up on iNTp' and about their flaws and oft repeated mistakes,
Define "flaw" and "mistake". A flaw means something in the object is making it not perfect. So, you'd have to define the "perfect" type before calling something a flaw.
On the same note, a "mistake" is something that is not correct. So, you'd have to point out the "correct" way of acting before calling something a mistake.
I would assume that without relying on religious texts, you could not define "perfect" and "correct" and have other types agree with you.
I was then able to further adjust my own personality in the ways that I desired to.
Balanced? How unfortunate.
A person has only so much energy, and that energy can be spent on one of the four preferences (S, N, F, T). Generally, a person picks one perceiving trait (N, S) and one judgemental trait (T, F), with one of those two being dominant, and the other auxillary.
While you can develop all of them, it will usually make the person inadequate in everything. Keirsey especially points out that if a person goes 50/50 on S/N they are in bad shape. IIRC, Meyers-Briggs mentions it too. Adahan (another book on the subject) mentions the balance required between S/N, but not that anyone should develop both. Rather, a person needs some of the other perceiving trait in order to live in the world and not become too shallow (S) or to reserved (N).
While T and F are easier on balance, they also have the same issues. You do not want to be equal there, particulary since T judgements (logic-judgements) and F judgements (value-judgements) are in conflict many times, and repulse each other. (F repulses T, T thinks F to be silly.) So, if one form of judgement is not prefered, you will be in trouble.
J/P preference, however, can be balanced. Drawing an even line between when to stop perceiving and start judging has its practical advantages. However, it also is not without fault. Since a person cannot perceive and judge at the same time, there can be conflict at critical times, and (especially an S) will not be to do their best in many situations.
The I/E preference is more interesting. One is likely to be dominant if only to define where the dominant trait is used. Since Is and Es have opposite needs, I would wonder how a "balanced" person would "recharge their batteries".
Instead of going for balance, I try to develop my other traits. as an INTJ, my N is dominant. So, I am working on my F, when it doesn't conflict with my T (or when in can enlighten it, and thus have it agree). It is a great exercise, and I hope to get a well developed F side soon, but in no way will I let it remove my T dominance. That would be a big mistake.
What I mean is that you have to fully understand past events and experiences in your life in order to know how they are biasing your thoughts.
That would be one way. Of course the other way (and probably much easier) would be to understand another way of viewing things. This is especially easy for Ps.
That is what I am speaking of, by my use of the word 'emotions' in my previous posting I was trying to refer to the underlying set of thoughts that dominates what we think in our fully conscious mind.
So then say that. Maybe a better phrase would be "underlying set of thoughts". You just said it, and it is a much easier term for communicating that. (Silly P, can't stand well-defined words.
I am surprised that technique worked for you, many NTs have troubles grasping why people would ever
You really don't get out much, do you. Being a technical person, I work with NTs. They are the one's who--better than anyone else--understand these things. I just read in Adahan (no idea where she got it from) that 85% of people that go to psycologists are NFs, but, 85% of psycologists are NTs. NTs love psycology, it is they who can really get down into the esoteric workings of someone's mind more easily than anyone else.
I have to isolate myself from the emotional 'want' phase of things and instead take a step back to the underlying question of "what caused that behavioral pattern to grow in the first place?"
NFs have a hard time *not* being empathic. Other people's emotions are extremely suggestive to the NF, so the clouding of their thoughts is quite normal. The fact that you can step back from it show good charater development. You know when to let your T keep your F in check.
have yet to meet an extrovert who does anything but...
The term 'sheep' comes to mind. . . bleck. Necessary to keep the work force up I guess. .
Too bad. There are many fine Es out there. One E in particular (ESTJ) has a profound effect on me for the better. Bill Gates is an ENTJ and had a wonderful effect on computers. Bush is an ESFJ and Clinton was an ESFP. I would assume that you think at least one of them is worthwhile.
You may need to read up on extraversion. Unfortunately, Keirsey down plays it way too much to the point where he doesn't even explain it. Meyers-Briggs explains it quite well (Gifts Differing), however. Considering 2/3 of the world are Es, you best understand them better. Further, didn't you say that you were close to balance? Does that meant that you also look at youself with disgust?
but I don't feel like fully explaining why I don't like extroverts right now, heh. That is between me and my meditation time.
Meditation. Hmm... I prefer pacing and imagining arguments. Like I did this morning before I responded.
Honesty man, shoot. But the
Actually, I'd expect it to come from your NF side. Being empathic, you are very responsive to their (subtle) emotions, which probably make them feel comfortable around you.
Being a nerd, and a social outcast, makes a person seem untrustworthy because they don't care to play by the rules. Now, if a person takes another look, they may realize that the nerd has a "better" set of rules. But how many people look that far?
I am a firm believer in being blunt, though things also have to be laid gently onto people, eventually there is that point in time where everything has to be stated bluntly for the person to accept. ^_^
I don't know how to express it. But since I agree whole-heartedly with this comment, I want to tell you that I can appreciate, and in fact praise, this sentiment. I feel a sense of pride here.
I am usually blunt, simply because politeness requires lieing, and I have seen the havoc it has wreaked. Politeness should be for the fragile and the elderly (to teach us to respect others, and to learn from them).
Huh? They are one in the same.
No, they are not.
Creating emotional dependencies is done even if there is no need for the person. It is like a salesman selling something that is not needed. Sometimes the person is needed, but that isn't even looked at since people assume that the person is. It is almost security because others fear your loss.
I prefer to do a job that makes people go "wow!". As such, even if they want to get rid of me they'll think twice, because I do such a great job.
One can always isolate the sources of bias from things though.
Yes, but removing it is next to impossible.
Clothing? Make a list of what you consider different clothing to 'do'.
It affects the psyche of the person wearing to be in accordance with the psyche of the person who created it and the social values bestowed upon those who wear it by current society.
In extreme cases.
Give poor man very expensive clothes. He will soon act in accordance with those clothes.
To be subtle. Have a person walk into a party with a $100 suit. Then, have the same person walk in with a $1000 suit. The way the person acts will most probably be different.
There are also loud and soft colors, provocative and conservative clothing, this style and that style, etc. All are created by people and all are seen by people. The effect this has on a person is profound, and probably usually goes unnoticed. I remember once when I wore something I didn't usually wear. I felt myself trying to act differently. It was amazing.
When you see some particular piece of clothing that strikes you a particular way, take a bit of time to figure out why it caused that reaction in you. Was it because some character you liked in a book you read wore something similar?
No. I rarely think of a characters clothes. Same with the rest of the paragraph. Maybe you misunderstood. It is the person doing the thinking that is affected by their clothes. Not the person they are thinking of.
Nope! But they are commonly confused.
Instead of {re/sup}pressing emotions (which does NOT work, eventually it WILL BLOW UP IN YOUR FACE !) you can instead just. . . let them go.
People cannot just let their emotions go. They must be expressed in some for or fashion.
You are correct, supressing emotions is a bad thing. But telling someone that they can let them go, IMNSHO, is much, much worse.
For years I tried to suppress my anger...Therapy and schooling to help with my self control helped the situation a bit,
Well, by saying "let it go", you are not actually letting it go, you are not letting it come. Adahan gets into this, and mentions that a person should always look twice. (She doesn't say it like that.) If a person's first look makes them angry at something, she advocated to look again. In most cases the response will be different. I just read that, and I may try it out soon enough.
Nobody has infinite control of their emotions,
Not yet. But I am working on it.
given enough continual build up of emotional stimuli, sooner or later you will react.
Actually, that is an NF trait. The other three types can suppress their emotions (especially Ts) for very long periods of time. And, if they find time to redirect those emotions over the years, they ought to be fine. An NF, however, has much greater build-up, and therefore needs more to let it off much more often.
Re:Err. . . (Score:1)
SPs?
Special People? Hmmm. . . feh.
I have met children (and adults) with adhd who are of below average intelligence, average intelligence, and of above average intelligence. They have all sorts of personalities and a wide range of backgrounds, adhd is not just 'those special cases' though I do admit that 'the system' has a bit of a tendency to misdiagnose people in order to try and make things simpler.
But saying that adhd does not exist?
Bull, you have never felt what it is like to not be able to even copy a word from a blackboard because you where unable to keep your mind focused on a single letter in the time it took you to turn your head from the blackboard to the piece of paper. Do NOT try and tell me that is normal, or that it was because I was 'bored' or any other such crud.
Overall, however, I agree with him and have seen misdiagnosed cases.
Have you met five year you met five year old children who break out in tears because they are unable to sit still for even a minutes? Have you met 10 year old children to whom the ultimate punishment was to be made to sit still for even just two minutes?
I also have a tendency to avoid drugs (except in extreme cases),
As a person who is taking a regular regimen of class 2 drugs (Dexedrine) and another mere class 3 (luvox) I have to agree, meds are to be avoided in all but the most extreme of cases, and indeed the project to which I went to that helped me believed in a dual medicine and therapy approach.
*interjection. I find it more then just a wee bit scary that Dictionary.com recongizes and capitolized Dexedrine for me. . .
*shudders*
If meds alone are enough to 'take care of' the 'problem' then odds are that a bit of therapy would do as good and the meds may not be needed at all, but if meds alone are not enough and therapy is needed, then there likely is an actual problem.
and I believe in redirecting children's energies rather than suppressing them (with drugs).
Is not one definition of adhd that which is an inability to redirect energies? Heh. . .
It was quite some time ago when I took the test (seventh grade or so), but basically I am the same. I did have the inability to feel empathy (did not even know what it was at the time. ^_^ ) but most of what I am now that has changed at all is that I can now
I would quote you from the site, but it seems that less and less of the material from the book is available online each time I go there. . .
Oh, and I do believe in absolute morality and ethics, err, more on that later.
Balanced? How unfortunate.
A person has only so much energy, and that energy can be spent on one of the four preferences (S, N, F, T).
Give me one reason why?
When I need to be creative, I am creative, when I need to be logical, I am logical. Ok wait lie, when I need to be creative I twist my logic into creativity, when I need to be empathetic I use my logic to pull apart everything a person has said and rip out the true meaning of what they have been saying, when I need to be idealistic I use my Logic to figure out what is the most optimum pathway to follow and I go after it in a logical fashion.
Human emotion follows logical patterns, once the biological and evolutionary nature of the roots of human emotion is understood, one needs merely devaluate all that is presented to them of another person into the base forms, an application that is perfect for which to apply the use of logic to.
(who the heck was it that said I am not supposed to end a sentence with the word 'to'? Feh, that sentence wouldn't be complete if I did not use the word 'to'. ^_^ )
That would be one way. Of course the other way (and probably much easier) would be to understand another way of viewing things. This is especially easy for Ps.
How silly, there are an almost infinite number of ways to view something, but all humans share a common evolutionary background.
What you are suggesting is analogous to making a computer program by guessing at the machine code instructions of another program with the desired functions that you have downloaded off of the Internet, without any knowledge of machine code, and then rewriting it all into some higher level language and compiling it again.
Heck, just learn machine code, do it from the ground up. Sure it is harder originally, but. . . you then know how the complete system works inside and out, once you have achieved complete understanding of the machine, you will be able to comprehend anything that you encounter.
You really don't get out much, do you. Being a technical person, I work with nts. They are the one's who--better than anyone else--understand these things. I just read in Adahan (no idea where she got it from) that 85% of people that go to psycologists are NFs, but, 85% of psycologists are nts. nts love psycology, it is they who can really get down into the esoteric workings of someone's mind more easily than anyone else.
Are we talking about the same group of people here??
Since Keirsey seems insistent on earning as much money as possible. . . (yah, always a sign of a good doctor, feh. .
--typelogic.com/intp.html
Hmm, some other nice items listed there;
Lord Knows I have gotten enough death threats over that point there.
One E in particular (ESTJ) has a profound effect on me for the better. Bill Gates is an EntJ and had a wonderful effect on computers.
*sighs*
Listen, reason people tend to not like billy boy is because he has repeatedly held back technology for the sake of earning money.
Now if you had even a hint of a Nerd in you this would piss you off beyond all means, because as all proper Nerds know, NOTHING, and I mean nothing should ever hold back technology, especialy not some {highly censored}'eds desire to earn another few billion.
Microsoft has repeatedly bought out superior product lines (or just used downright intimidation to keep those products off of PCs) in order to establish their monopoly, and once they where on top they seemed to have no problems with milking it for all it is worth.
If Bill Gates gave a royal flying care about technology, then he would have done everything he could have to
Not to mention the entire suing over the use of the word 'icon' and 'windows' . . . yeesh.
Bush is an ESFJ and Clinton was an ESFP. I would assume that you think at least one of them is worthwhile. My moral system has no qualms about bush dying in some horrible nasty fashion (riggin friggin republican rich boy. . . ), and while Clinton is a good guy to have leading things (he was definitely able to convince almost anybody of almost anything) admire is not the word I would use. . . Like him? Sure? Make him president for life? Only if nobody told him about it (heh), but admire? . . . he sinned way to much.
Further, didn't you say that you were close to balance? Does that meant that you also look at youself with disgust?
I said closer-er to balence, as in before I was almost compleatly I, around 4x as much as E, but I am not only 2x or so as I as E.
I basically see E's as people who are too afraid/weak to look inside of themselves and instead focus on trivial and often times puerile things. Men who are so weak that they still care about the size of a woman's bustline or Woman who are so weak that they care about how well the latest pop singer can 'shake his bon bon .
People who are stupid enough to spend tons of money on clothing and fashion when there is absolutely NO logical reason to do so.
When I think of Es I think of the vegetarian hunter I knew. Yah you got that right. Shoot the meat, leave it there. I Her mind there was no connection between vegetarianism (she didn't eat meat cuz she didn't like the idea of killing all those pooh little widdly coot animals. .
Shallow. Ugh.
Meditation. Hmm... I prefer pacing and imagining arguments. Like I did this morning before I responded.
Same thing, self reflection, figuring out all possible weak points in views and shoring them up and or changing views when beliefs have been logically ripped to shreds.
Actually, I'd expect it to come from your NF side. Being empathic, you are very responsive to their (subtle) emotions, which probably make them feel comfortable around you.
Being a nerd, and a social outcast, makes a person seem untrustworthy because they don't care to play by the rules. Now, if a person takes another look, they may realize that the nerd has a "better" set of rules. But how many people look that far?
I would have to disagree. When the rules say "you get hurt" seems to me that you'd start looking for somebody who doesn't play by the rules. Is that not one of the basis of the Catholic's system of confession? The Priest is safe to talk to because he is outside of the normal bounds.
Original message in thread by me typed at 2am in the morning, excuse me if my vocabulary level was a bit down there.
Less of a mouth (keyboard?) full that way.
But I had gotten into the habit of using that nomenclature, doh.
Ah yes now for my little rant on morals and ethics.
I am an adherent to the school of thought which says humans evolved from animals and that as such we share the same common motivators that Animals do but just in a more 'refined' or some would say complicated form, heh. Thus all human emotions and behaviors can be reduced down to the basic survivalist instincts that are to be found throughout nature.
Now of course often times those methods of survival have been corrupted by civilization, after all when each day was a struggle to survive and living at all meant hoarding food for ones family, or even in extreme cases for ones self, then yes indeed getting all that one could was a good thing, because all that one could get was just barely enough to survive.
Unfortunately that same instinct has gone awyre as time has gone by and now there is the possibility for people to gather
Obviously up to a certain point greed is a very pro-survival instinct, but after that point has been reached and the threshold has been crossed, it ceases to be a good thing for the human species as a whole (where as in the past if everybody shared equally everybody would have died off, which would not have been a good thing for the species, greed independent of the species as a whole was a good thing).
The same thing goes with nearly any emotion out there. You can logically trace back any motivation to its original "well how was that good for the species?" roots, and often times see how as time has passed, that original instinct has gone wrong.
I believe in artificial (by which I mean through the use of higher thought processes) redefining human motivations so that they are in logical accordance with what is best for the species now, since it is quite obvious that a lot of mother nature's original programming has become some what, err, obsolete, or at least it is suffering from major bitrot, heh.
Thus the reason I skip out on major st00pid forms of entertainment (orgies, drug binges, parties, loud music, etc etc etc and so forth) and instead only partake of the minimum needed emotional outlets, those which are of the most efficient type. (walks in garden, reading books, and so forth.)
Re:Err. . . (Score:1)
SPs?
Special People? Hmmm. . . feh.
Sensory-Perceiving. Keirsey's "Artisans". I apologize, I thought you were familiar with the work.
But saying that adhd does not exist?
Bull, you have never felt what it is like to not be able to even copy a word from a blackboard because you where unable to keep your mind focused on a single letter in the time it took you to turn your head from the blackboard to the piece of paper. Do NOT try and tell me that is normal, or that it was because I was 'bored' or any other such crud.
Well, we have both had experiences, and they were not the same cases, so I doubt that we will come to agreement here. Simply, it could very well be that I never saw a "real" adhd case. But, the option also exists that we see these differently.
Keirsey was a school psycologist. In most cases, kids with adhd were SPs. He helped redirect their energies (and made the parents and teachers more understanding). This helped quite a bit. That seems to be how Keirsey came to the conclusion that it was a farce.
I know of a few kids who in school are noted as having problems in class. They simply could not focus. So, they made a class that was more hands-on (perfect for SPs) and they responded very well. Those same kids who could not pay attention at all, were now keenly interested and gave a great amount of concentration. I hope to hear more about this project.
Have you met five year you met five year old children who break out in tears because they are unable to sit still for even a minutes?
No.
Have you met 10 year old children to whom the ultimate punishment was to be made to sit still for even just two minutes?
Yes.
Redirecting his energy worked like a charm.
>and I believe in redirecting children's energies rather than suppressing them (with drugs).
Is not one definition of adhd that which is an inability to redirect energies? Heh. .
It could be. I know very little on the subject. It's just that I don't think I have ever met anybody who could not be redirected. I have had much success with kids.
>A person has only so much energy, and that energy can be spent on one of the four preferences (S, N, F, T).
Give me one reason why?
Maybe I didn't convey the point properly. A person can only work on one preference *at a time*. The reasoning is simple. A person cannot both perceive and judge at the same time. When perceiving, one cannot perceive the outside world (S) and the inside world (N) at the same time. When judging, value-judgements (F) and logic-judgements (T) generally repulse each other, and in most cases will have different judgements, requiring you to choose one.
when I need to be creative I twist my logic into creativity,
No. When you need to be creative, you stop judging and start perceiving. Logic is a judgement preference.
when I need to be empathetic I use my logic
No, you do not. Logic is impersonal. Empathy, by definition, is personal. Logic cannot do empathy. Empathy is an NF trait. Mainly, the F value-judgements understands emotions, and the intuition makes it intense and understandable (to the perceiver). This has absolutely nothing to do with logic.
to pull apart everything a person has said and rip out the true meaning of what they have been saying,
Actually, you just dabbled in you T for a moment to help separate your own emotions from the other persons. But it is a person's F trait that helps them understand others.
when I need to be idealistic I use my Logic to figure out what is the most optimum pathway to follow and I go after it in a logical fashion.
I am not sure what you mean by "idealistic", but finding the optimum path is NT.
Human emotion follows logical patterns,
No, they do not.
Human emotions are value-based, and have nothing to do with logic. That is why overly emotional NFs use their T to suppress their emotions rather than understanding them. They already understand them, being they use their F preference all the time.
once the biological and evolutionary nature of the roots of human emotion is understood,
Assuming one believes that emotions are biological, and that evolution (happened and) effected emotions. All of which I think is untrue.
one needs merely devaluate all that is presented to them of another person into the base forms, an application that is perfect for which to apply the use of logic to.
No. Logic cannot understand emotions. Only value-judgements can, simply because emotions are value based, not logic based.
Once value-judgements chop up emotions into something that can be understood more logically (which is hard, since values do not always have the clear boundaries that logic requires) it may be able to help classify them. But, if the T does anything more than be auxillary to the F, it is likely to not be done well.
How silly, there are an almost infinite number of ways to view something,
Which makes is so much easier since there is a plethora of other views to use! And, there is probably only one view that is diametrically opposed to the person's current biew, and that would probably be the best one to make use of.
but all humans share a common evolutionary background.
That's your belief, not mine.
Are we talking about the same group of people here??
Yes.
You said, "many NTs have troubles grasping why people would ever
I responded, "I work with NTs. They are the one's who--better than anyone else--understand these things."
We are both talking about NTs. You said they have a hard time understanding. I mentioned my experience, and that they did understand. And then I pointed out some statistics to back it up.
Listen, reason people tend to not like billy boy is because he has repeatedly held back technology for the sake of earning money.
Which is irrelevant to the point I made. I said that he effected wonderful things for computers.
Now if you had even a hint of a Nerd in you this would piss you off beyond all means, because as all proper Nerds know, NOTHING, and I mean nothing should ever hold back technology,
That is a very young approach to life. Many things should hold back technology. Making money is not one of them. But, for example, saving lives, or people being happier are good examples. There are both advantages and disadvantages.
I basically see E's as people who are too afraid/weak to look inside of themselves and instead focus on trivial and often times puerile things.
Too bad. Es are wonderful people. They make the world go round, and keep the Is from falling helplessly outside the tangible world. You should probably read more on the subject. Since I have, I learnt to be much more appreciative of the other types, Es included.
People who are stupid enough to spend tons of money on clothing and fashion when there is absolutely NO logical reason to do so.
SPs do that. And if they used logic all the time, they'd probably go crazy. It is *good* for them to waste their money somewhat. It helps to redirect their energies and keeps them from exploding.
I Her mind
You mean she didn't have the same values that you did. Maybe not so much shallow as she is too lazy to think.
I would have to disagree. When the rules say "you get hurt" seems to me that you'd start looking for somebody who doesn't play by the rules.
Well, that matters if the person is mature or not. The rules are not always "you get hurt".
Is that not one of the basis of the Catholic's system of confession? The Priest is safe to talk to because he is outside of the normal bounds.
I have no idea. But I guess it sounds plausible.
Now of course often times those methods of survival have been corrupted by civilization,
Corrupted?
You sound like the idiot teacher my brother had that once stated, "any society that judges another society is wrong".
As for you bottom blurb, it was interesting, and you are allowed to believe it if you wish. However, for the record, I disagree and think it is foolishness.
>Meditation. Hmm... I prefer pacing and imagining arguments. Like I did this morning before I responded.
Same thing, self reflection, figuring out all possible weak points in views and shoring them up and or changing views when beliefs have been logically ripped to shreds.
No, it is not the same thing. I imagine arguments. meditation sounds much more value-based. That is, understanding all the values present. Then again, I mentioned this more as a cute remark.
Re:Err. . . (Score:1)
white supremacists*?
Nah screw it, once religion starts entering into things you don't end up with a science any more. (well unless you are talking about cultural sciences, but then that is history and effect, heh, not reality of).
*Yah I realize there are some oddball x-stian sects and such that believe in the multiple origins thing to, but once again, this is reality, not the x-stian mythos, the x-stain mythos is not viable proof to be used in a scientific argument.
same kids who could not pay attention at all, were now keenly interested and gave a great amount of concentration. I hope to hear more about this project.
Yah, I am sure that stopped the temper tantrums, anger management problems, and OCD that often times accompany ADHD. . . . **rolls eyes**
I have been in hands on class rooms, and while yes they
well that and the beanbag chairs.
Sensory-Perceiving. Keirsey's "Artisans". I apologize, I thought you were familiar with the work.
I tend to skip over the parts dealing with artists, I do not like damaging literature and I fear I would end up spitting in disgust. Bleck. The massive illogic and sheer stupidity of the actions of artistic types is immensly irritating, piss poor sense anything but their own self. (extrovert only so long as it means middle class or otherwise 'simular folk', ask them to comprehend what it means to be poor and they'll write you a lovely poem on it or paint you a great picture, but'll then see nothing with using prceeds from its sale to purchase a fine fur coat. . . . or fine artificial fur coat depending upon the current social trend that they follow)
Of course this entire discussion is ignoring that psychology is not even a real science, that role is firmly reserved for psychiatry. I will 100% adhere to a set of beliefs once proper biochemical(or otherwise scientificaly reproducable) responses have been shown to exist in accordence with that particular school of thought's theories.
Re:Err. . . (Score:1)
I highly doubt that. Both Christians and Jews believe that angels came down to earth and had children. Further, Jews believe that different nations developed differently, thus the "seventy nations" theory. With Muslims, it is hard to know. Different communities have differences in what is allegorical and what is real.
Yah, I am sure that stopped the temper tantrums, anger management problems, and OCD that often times accompany ADHD. . .
I actually have no idea. The fact was that it was tried. Now that I am interested, and I may know a good deal of the kids, I'd like to know the results.
well that and the beanbag chairs.
As a P it may actualy be more conducive to your learning. Ps have a "play ethic", that is, play now, work later. And, even when work is done, it must be pleasurable. (Shows up worse in SPs since the pleasure must be sensual.) This would be detrimental to the Js, however. And I believe the world is about 50/50 on the J/P preference.
Why civilization keeps it up? For one, it helps good posture. When posture is good, the person is actually more comfortable in the long run. Also, (just a guess) even though the SPs may find it more comfortable to slouch, that relaxation is likely to convince them not to learn. But for the NPs, it may be a very good idea.
I tend to skip over the parts dealing with artists,
Too bad. SPs together with SJs, make up about 75%-85% percent of the population.
The massive illogic and sheer stupidity of the actions of artistic types is immensly irritating, piss poor sense anything but their own self.
Not really. The SPs are hedonistic, but they are also the most generous. The unintegrated SP only wants pleasure for himself. The developed SP wants pleasure for all. Without SPs, life would most likely be boring. My best friend is an ESTP (we've been friends for 22-25 years I'd guess) and he is a very generous person. Without him, I'd probably never have any fun.
write you a lovely poem on it or paint you a great picture,
Only the Fs. The Ts are "Operators" and would rather work with tools (I) or people (E).
but'll then see nothing with using prceeds from its sale to purchase a fine fur coat. . . . or fine artificial fur coat depending upon the current social trend that they follow)
And buying anything else would end up hurting them through depression. That's why SP and SJs work so well together. The SP keeps the SJ from falling into deep melancholy, and the SJ keeps the SP from being too hedonistic.
Of course this entire discussion is ignoring that psychology is not even a real science, that role is firmly reserved for psychiatry.
Which is pleasurable. Science has been the current fad (history-wise, where fads can last centuries). Psycology, religion, philosophy, etc.. are much more mature. Eventually, science will be for "scientists" and some other fad will take over, and the social elite will laugh at the mere mention of it.
(Note, I am not against science. But I am against the active belief that only science can prove things.)