| || |
This is a discussion on The (stream of conscious?) venting thread for INTJ. within the INTJ Forum - The Scientists forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Originally Posted by lolthevoidlol posted this on my fb last night and it caused an epically stupid argument between two ...
The thing is, he's so close to being right, but he's blinded by his anger and can't understand that he's perpetuating the cycle. Some of his points are actually good ones, but the way he says them, you know that he doesn't actually understand WHY he is right, and that is what is creating--
I don't even want to get into this. This is everything I can't stand about humanity. He could've handled it so much more intelligently. But instead, he decided to just be a pissed off dick.
She didn't destroy his property, she just voiced her feelings. Holy FUCK. I hate this guy.
I told my ESFP friend that I have little consideration for other peoples' feelings, and he automatically assumes, "So what you're saying is that you are a psychopath?"
... I don't think that's what I said.
My legs are dark blue because of bruises, my joints hurt, my knees are swollen and I can't sit of my butt. I conquered the most dangerous hill after 5 days of training and I finally can do those damned turns. You, doctors, can eat your diagnosis of labyrinthitis. I don't believe, I have it. I can keep balance. I'm a snowboarder. I'm immortal.
Perhaps it is a social thing? You know, some people like nerds as nerds are often classified as being "intelligent," though that's not necessarily true; glasses =/= intelligence. The misconception might be enough to attract people to them, although I think that is more of a recent thing and doesn't hold up when you go back a few hundred years ago and "nerd" wasn't even in the vocabulary.
Although maybe the reason does go back that far! When things like glasses weren't invented or, when they were, just weren't as common? Although I don't know the history of glasses. Considering, though, the only way you would know that someone was short-sighted would be if they wore glasses - at least externally. If someone didn't tell you then you would not know, and you would procreate and the ill-sightedness would continue to pass on. This mostly holds up in more ancient times before the consideration for science and such, as those with ill-sightedness might not even realize there was something wrong with them? This argument is based entirely on the existence of glasses, though, so it is dependent on their history, and I can't be arsed to research right now.
I do think that your theory is plausible, though - in that they are ill-sighted but they make up for it elsewhere with another sense. I guess something like that would depend on HOW ill-sighted they are, because someone with generally fuzzy vision wouldn't require as much sensory compensation as someone who can't tell the difference between a cactus and their dear Aunt Maggie.
Or maybe there is no difference?