# How Would You React?



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Sparked by a recent conversation on the Gamma threads, I thought it would be interesting to poll people's responses.

If your type was brought into question during a debate with another member of the Forums as if you were not present, and not being consulted for your reasoning/opinion, would you be offended?

Due to confusion... Adding ridiculously emphasized example.

*Person Z:* "Ah, yes. Your illogical argument seems to come from (Insert function here)." .. 
*(A new character emerges!) *
*Person X:* "Ah, yes. I concur. They seem to be displaying a lack of (function), blahdeebloo."
*Person Z:* "Hmm, quite. Tea?"


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

I don't get what there'd be to be offended about?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I wouldn't. I don't take types very seriously to begin with.

But, if what you're asking is if I take offense to people disagreeing with me and discussing that disagreement with others when I'm not around - well doesn't that happen all the time anyway?

I suppose I'm so used to people gossiping or talking behind my back it doesn't really bother me at all. It seems perfectly natural to me. People want to avoid a conflict, so they discuss things in private. I wouldn't even call it passive aggressive, although I suppose it could be.

I'd be more concerned with the ramifications of the rumor-milling. If it got out of hand and led to some unfortunate consequences that might threaten the completion of my goals (one of which is to live a peaceful life), then I would be upset. But even then, I don't expect human beings not to act like the archetypical creatures they are, so I wouldn't get upset at them - that'd be like getting mad at something as ordinary as the weather. Rather, I treat the _event_ like a nuisance, and it's like, "oh boy, now I've got to deal with this bullshit." Lol.


----------



## Straystuff (May 23, 2014)

Depending on the context, yes.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

I wouldn't care. Actually I'd like it. Perhaps I'm mistaken about something, and this discussion would bring that to light. My type isn't my identity.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Stampede said:


> I wouldn't care. Actually I'd like it. Perhaps I'm mistaken about something, and this discussion would bring that to light. My type isn't my identity.


I suppose that the idea behind it is that... Two people are discussing you, and not involving you in the discussion. During an unrelated debate.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> I suppose that the idea behind it is that... Two people are discussing you, and not involving you in the discussion. During an unrelated debate.


Why would I care if people are discussing me? That would be kind of flattering lol. I don't feel as though having a discussion about me without involving me is unethical.

If they say "Stampede is a baby killer." then I would be upset about being called a baby killer. The act of discussing me without involving me doesn't seem like a huge deal by itself. Especially a discussion about my personality type. Maybe this is an Fe/Fi thing? For me it's about the content of the discussion, not the method of the discussion.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Stampede said:


> Why would I care if people are discussing me? That would be kind of flattering lol. I don't feel as though having a discussion about me without involving me is unethical.
> 
> If they say "Stampede is a baby killer." then I would be upset about being called a baby killer. The act of discussing me without involving me doesn't seem like a huge deal by itself. Especially a discussion about my personality type. Maybe this is an Fe/Fi thing? For me it's about the content of the discussion, not the method of the discussion.


I have no idea. roud:

It's why I put up the poll.

I don't necessarily see it as unethical. I just see it as being rather alienating to the individual involved. It struck me like this: 

"Ah, yes. Your illogical argument seems to come from (Insert function here)." .. (A new character emerges!) 
"Ah, yes. I concur. They seem to be displaying a lack of (function), blahdeebloo."
"Hmm, quite. Tea?"

... Paraphrasing, of course. And ridiculously emphasized, probably. I see this kind of behaviour a lot on the forums, and I think it doesn't really improve an intellectual discussion.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Hmm, interesting. 

So, pretty much a resounding 'No,' so far.

I wasn't expecting that.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

depends on if they are talking about something about me that isn't overridden by internal concerns
if curiosity > indignation, I don't care


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Depends on their claims really. I think I'd be more pissed if their accusations of my character are incorrect rather than the act of talking about my character is. People can talk, go ahead, I know they do anyway and it doesn't bother me. It only bothers me if they have the guts to tell me something that is absolutely bullshit about me as a way to gain power in an argument. I usually dismiss such observations, unless I find them to be highly accurate because they actually resonate and make sense, as a poor reading of character and I dismiss any potential validity outright because it doesn't jive with my own observations or seem to touch on something that I didn't note myself but I can totally see has some kind of legitimacy to it.

Also @Word Dispenser, I think only Fe types but perhaps alpha more so than beta, would concern themselves with the idea of it being "alienating" lol. Fi types would focus on whether it's rude or not, which you can see here as well.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> I have no idea. roud:
> 
> It's why I put up the poll.
> 
> ...


I'd just rebut their arguments if I could then move on with my life. Alienation is a constant state of being for me. I'm almost completely oblivious to the "fitting in" aspect of discussions.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Depends on their claims really. I think I'd be more pissed if their accusations of my character are incorrect rather than the act of talking about my character is. People can talk, go ahead, I know they do anyway and it doesn't bother me. It only bothers me if they have the guts to tell me something that is absolutely bullshit about me as a way to gain power in an argument. I usually dismiss such observations, unless I find them to be highly accurate because they actually resonate and make sense, as a poor reading of character and I dismiss any potential validity outright because it doesn't jive with my own observations or seem to touch on something that I didn't note myself but I can totally see has some kind of legitimacy to it.
> 
> Also @_Word Dispenser_, I think only Fe types but perhaps alpha more so than beta, would concern themselves with the idea of it being "alienating" lol. Fi types would focus on whether it's rude or not, which you can see here as well.


I guess this is Fi PoLR at its finest. I honestly thought it _was _rude.

Reminds me of the good ol' days when kids on the playground would exchange looks and talk about me negatively right in front of me. And pretend that they weren't.

Sigh. TRAUMA. :kitteh:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> I guess this is Fi PoLR at its finest. I honestly thought it _was _rude.
> 
> Reminds me of the good ol' days when kids on the playground would exchange looks and talk about me negatively right in front of me. And pretend that they weren't.
> 
> Sigh. TRAUMA. :kitteh:


Rude in an alienating way? XD 

I mean, people who openly exclude others like that, I find it rude and I may assert against that if I see it happening in a very serious ways because that's an obvious form of bullying, but I do not find discussing something impersonal as my type necessarily alienating. I may however find it disagreeable if it's done in such an impersonal way where the person in question is described as a mere study object.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Rude in an alienating way? XD
> 
> I mean, people who openly exclude others like that, I find it rude and I may assert against that if I see it happening in a very serious ways because that's an obvious form of bullying, but I do not find discussing something impersonal as my type necessarily alienating. I may however find it disagreeable if it's done in such an impersonal way where the person in question is described as a mere study object.


It's just very dismissive of the other person, despite the fact that it is about the other person. Especially when they have already determined their type, and thus, likely had no thoughts of contention themselves. 

I think that questioning one's type is healthy, and often an interesting, and objective discussion. But, when a debate is going on that has nothing to do with it, and then type is brought into question, it's often taken as a personal attack. And I couldn't really blame the person for thinking so, because they are debating something unrelated, and then type is brought into question, and conversed about without the invitation to participate.

For me, it would depend on the extent. After awhile, I think, it would be a bit insulting. And from what I've seen, most people-- Even Gammas-- React hostilely to this kind of treatment. And they may not admit, or notice, that it offends them. But, it certainly seems to, at any rate.

But, my poll results tell a different story to my conjectures, thus, I think I might have been sorely mistaken.

Or perhaps I didn't word it correctly...


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> *Person Z:* "Ah, yes. Your illogical argument seems to come from (Insert function here)." ..
> *(A new character emerges!) *
> *Person X:* "Ah, yes. I concur. They seem to be displaying a lack of (function), blahdeebloo."
> *Person Z:* "Hmm, quite. Tea?"


Alienation aspect wouldn't be offensive to me. In this example Person Z, who directly refers to the poster in question, seems like the most challenging actually. I see how this can be offensive, especially for a person who thinks he/she is a strong logical ego type, but really it's about the content what those people are saying, not the fact that they are discussing this involving or alienating a person who's type they question. I don't think that people would mind if somebody praise them behind their backs, lol.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

To_august said:


> Alienation aspect wouldn't be offensive to me. In this example Person Z, who directly refers to the poster in question, seems like the most challenging actually. I see how this can be offensive, especially for a person who thinks he/she is a strong logical ego type, but really it's about the content what those people are saying, not the fact that they are discussing this involving or alienating a person who's type they question. I don't think that people would mind if somebody praise them behind their backs, lol.


Bah, I don't know how to explain it!

*grumblegrumble*


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

I couldn't resist voting for "I just wanted to see the poll results." 

But really, it depends. I would actually welcome more discussion of my type because I'm curious and I'm not totally sure of my type anyway. I could change my mind about it with convincing enough evidence. 

I could see how it could be offensive though. When someone starts assigning a type to you based on typist remarks or the intent to insult you. They type you as the same type as someone they dislike because you exhibit the same behavior the person doing the typing dislikes. That sort of thing.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

@Word Dispenser If someone's discussing something and another person, either involved in the conversation or not, says "What you said here sounded like X type/IE/etc." I don't think it's rude and if the person is offended then I'd expect that to come from their own insecurities, it is their own fault, basically.

_However_, there's people who use claims like that to invalidate a person's argument. They will avoid responding to the other person's post directly and will instead question their type or drive the discussion to a different direction. That is obviously an ill-willed tactic.

Also, referring to someone in 3rd person when that person is present is, in any context I can think of, rude because you are excluding that person from the dialogue. But in forums no one's actually sharing an actual physical space, which can make the distinction between someone who's present and someone who's not blurry.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> @_Word Dispenser_ If someone's discussing something and another person, either involved in the conversation or not, says "What you said here sounded like X type/IE/etc." I don't think it's rude and if the person is offended then I'd expect that to come from their own insecurities, it is their own fault, basically.
> 
> _However_, there's people who use claims like that to invalidate a person's argument. They will avoid responding to the other person's post directly and will instead question their type or drive the discussion to a different direction. That is obviously an ill-willed tactic.
> 
> Also, referring to someone in 3rd person when that person is present is, in any context I can think of, rude because you are excluding that person from the dialogue. But in forums no one's actually sharing an actual physical space, which can make the distinction between someone who's present and someone who's not blurry.


I maintain that I don't know how to word this properly...

I'll try again.

A and B are having a discussion/debate...
B claims A's argument is weak _because of_ their cognition, implying being mistyped,
C chimes in and elaborates on this weakness, and which type this person must be, not addressing A.
B continues conversation about A without consulting/asking A about their own views regarding themselves.

If person A is offended, it's their own fault?

Okay.

You learn something new everyday, I always say... My husband is right! I have a skewed view of the world. :kitteh:

But, pretty much anytime there's a discussion of cognition about someone with someone else, I always try to add something _for _that person, so that I'm not.. Being rude. Or whatever. 

It just seems like the right thing to do would be:

"Yeah, aside from this discussion, it seems like you have this weakness, person A, could you give me examples of instances where you have weakness in (area of current established type), instead?"


----------

