Meta wrote:
TheDoctor82 wrote:
What? I just agreed about the "...If you consider a lack of response to your ideas a greater insult than a logically debated attack on them and don't understand why everyone else thinks it works the other way around."
Transforming the quote for your understanding: "If you consider the lack of response to your ideas a greater insult then a
argument and don't understand why everyone else thinks it works the other way around"
TheDoctor82 wrote:
What did I say that threw off your sleep schedule for the night? Please enlighten me.
Quote:
No argument on that one.
No
logically debated attack on that one...
just a lack of response. By the way, I think the reason why most people think it works the other way around is because most of them seem to "identify" with "their" arguments? Any attack on their argument is a attack on them? Even more strange: Agreeing with them using the same arguments can sometimes lead to conflict, as if you trespassed upon their turf. (I see that more now I'm older).
I never feel that I "own" the arguments I use? The whole concept is alien to me? I don't even have a position in most discussions, I prefer to exhaust positions and arguments to understand the whole scope and depth of the situation, the logic behind it, rather then defend one singular position from the start. What good does that do? NT's are weird people.
funny you should mention that....reason being one thing I tell people about how to become successful in life--not to mention a lot better informed--is to ask two simple questions: "how", and "why". From where I stand, it appears most folks (i.e. most NTs) just seem to accept things verbatim. I don't do that...and you don't become successful in this world by just accepting what's common belief. Those who became famous & successful were the ones who challenged what was common belief, and came up with amazing new innovations in wake of those beliefs.
In fact, here's a funny one:
first of all, I'm no longer into politics, pretty much at all; I like a few of our past presidents, and know what happened under several administrations, but that's about it. I don't follow politics anymore, or anything like that...and might I add, I'm a lot happier.
But anyway, it seems the majority of political parties in this world manage to suck everyone in due to their desire to "matter" and "be important", as I've discussed in another thread. And what better way to get them to feel like they "matter" than helping the poor? So, every side engages in usually a half-assed argument about how we should do this or that to help the poor.
Well, here's my ultimate question:
why should we help the poor? Can't they do anything for themselves? Most of the richest and most successful people in this world started out in miserable poverty, but because of it had a major desire to leave those straits, and succeeded later on in ways most could never even imagine.
I assure you...if you bring this question up to any NT, they'll just slam you for "not being sensitive", or something like that. The whole thing is really a guilt angle, but NTs just want to "matter" so badly, that they'll do anything to say "I matter"...even if they haven't done a freakin' thing other than electing some sleazy politican to represent them( who, in most cases, ironically, usually does).
But most of the innovations that we bring up are in areas of technology, and better ways of doing business, and things like that. And all you have to say to people is "money", and they jump in like rabid dogs...though it'd usually be better if they understood the mechanics behind how to make the currency