12
   

Relationships and Nature of Conflict: "Please Understand Me"

 
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 05:49 am
@Intrepid,
I am not sure if you were referring to my comments re how we may be less self-aware on the net, or if you mean the whole FOW personae sort of thing?
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 05:51 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

I am not sure if you were referring to my comments re how we may be less self-aware on the net, or if you mean the whole FOW personae sort of thing?


The following

Quote:
The net, I think, is a place where we often let go of that nuance and self-awareness, for a bunch of reasons, even if we have it quite well developedin real life.


{edit} Actually, I think it could refer to the FOW thing as well.
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 06:21 am
@dlowan,
I can see all the different perspectives and all I can do is hope that many will come to understand.

This whole thing has been an emotional roller coaster for some of us and I hope that there aren't too many hard feeling. I wish there was an easy way of telling people they're hurting you, without having to hurt them too. I absolutely hate hurting anyone and, well, it just sucks.

<waiting for dust to settle>
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 06:29 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

Some of us are exactly the same on the net as we are in real life. I, for one, do not separate the two since I am me and that is the way it is. I think it is immature and silly to create a personna on the net. Then again that is just me.

There is a fine line between insanity and genius. That is also evident on the net.


I'm the same here as in real life as well, except you see more of the fun side of me here (not lately, but usually).
My fun side is still intact outside of here, but you see more of my serious side out there in the cruel world.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 06:32 am
@Montana,
Smile and the world smiles with you. Cry and you cry alone. Crying or Very sad
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 06:49 am
@Intrepid,
Can't agree with you there.

When I smile, some who are not smiling don't like it, going as far as trying to take mine. Happens all the time (not here, just in general) and when I cry sometimes some cry with me.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 06:51 am
@Montana,
It was just an old saying. Not directed to your or your life per se. Just trying to lighten the day. Smile
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 06:59 am
@Intrepid,
I know, but I couldn't resist.

Sorry ((((((Intrepid)))))) Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 07:29 am
@Intrepid,
I am not talking about a deliberately different net persona, just that, I think, for some, there is a different dynamic that forms.

I don't have a problem, by the way, with people experimenting with different personae on the net, as long as it is not used to hurt and abuse.

I suspect it could be interesting to explore different ways of being/relating.

Eg...I didn't choose a gender ambiguous nom de net to hide my gender...but it's been really interesting that a lot of people assume I am male, and it's been kind of fun to see if they interact differently when they find out.

0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 09:57 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

Some of us are exactly the same on the net as we are in real life. I, for one, do not separate the two since I am me and that is the way it is. I think it is immature and silly to create a personna on the net. Then again that is just me.

Well I certainly don't think Ive created any kind of "persona" on the net - certainly not out to deceive, or to posture as something I'm not. But yeah, sure, there's ways in which I'm different here than in real life. Express myself differently, show more (or less) of one or the other side of me than in the real world, etc. I think thats what the wabbit was talking about.

Like, in real life I go to parties (well, not as much anymore now, but I used to quite a lot) - and the way I was in the club, you would never have seen me here. Cause you know, there's no music and throngs of clubbers, sexy dancers and E here, kinda gets you in a different kind of mood Cool . Vice versa, I've long used this place to let my inner geek out in ways I wouldnt with my friends, and have sometimes been introspective in ways I'm not in public IRL. That kind of thing, I think it's natural - context is everything.

(I used to have a boss who was kind, charming and enthused live, and just sounded curt and stern in email. It was kind of disconcerting, but I dont think she even knew...)
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 10:35 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

Some of us are exactly the same on the net as we are in real life. I, for one, do not separate the two since I am me and that is the way it is. I think it is immature and silly to create a personna on the net. Then again that is just me.

There is a fine line between insanity and genius. That is also evident on the net.


I am also 100% myself on the net but am likely a different temperament type from you because I can understand how somebody might want to create a different personna to try out for fun, to escape a more mundane existence for a little while, or just out of curiosity of how people will respond to a different 'me' or whatever. I can relate to that and understand that it isn't intended to be dishonest.

Also on some message boards I have resisted as long as possible revealing my gender or age, for instance, as some members do react differently and/or treat me differently if they know that about me.

I'm guessing your temperament is practical and you value straight forward relationships and reality. You probably don't dabble a whole lot in the fanciful. That gives you a particular intelligence and particular strengths. But that more fanciful or creative (in that particular sense) person also will have his/her own unique intelligence and strengths.

S/he might not appreciate what s/he could see as your more rigid, unyielding point of view and you might not appreciate the one who expresses himself/herself in more fanciful or imaginative or creative ways. The whole purpose behind Kiersey's philosophy is to help each of you see that the world needs both kinds of people and perhaps you can come to understand that your differences are not necessarily a bad thing. Once we do that we might even come to appreciate that the way the other person's relates differently is right for him or her. That doesn't mean s/he isn't just as annoying to us, but we back off on the impulse to change him/her or criticize him/her for not being more like us.

In organizational structures, this process does not suggest that we accept behaviors from people that are harmful to others or the efficiency or success of the organization. It does help us identify the inate strengths and gifts of people and utilize them better.

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 10:42 am
@nimh,
In light of your post here, I should amend that 100% because I don't insert myself into discussions in real life as I do here; and I am more cautious in inserting my opinion about things in real life than I am here. So in that sense, I am different here than I am in the 'real world'. However, I do suspect that you and I are probably close to being at least in part the same temperament type as we both approach an issue much in the same way. That is not to say that we have anything in common or would agree on a whole lot in the real world, but I have long appreciated the way you approach an issue because...well...you do it like me. Smile
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 10:02 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
...it is not only futile but usually counter productive if not downright destructive to presume to to decide that for somebody else...


But you are doing no different here. The whole topic is about the very thing it criticizes, which is why I say it's a matter of balance.

Quote:
But if the 'meddlers' can be convinced to allow somebody else the strength of their own feelings and point of view, it is possible that the 'meddlers' might come to see that somebody else's point of view is actually right for that somebody else.


The same can be said for the meddlers and the meddled, you are just choosing which to judge and which to try to change.

Quote:
The two might never agree, but the 'offender' stops pushing and pulling and insulting and beating up somebody trying to make that somebody into something different from who he or she naturally is.


In other words you may be able to change them though the meddling.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 10:06 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
While this is not the end all and be all approach, it certainly is an eye opener for some.

I certainly do not think that this is crap and it does have much merit. Of course, there are situations where it may not apply. That is only common sense. The ability, however, to know the difference is what is also important.


I think one key is where one tends to be on the spectrum themselves and how their personal experiences have gone. I know people who should have this tattooed on their forehead so they can see it every day in the mirror, and I know others who I think would benefit from the direct opposite advice.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 11:14 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
...it is not only futile but usually counter productive if not downright destructive to presume to to decide that for somebody else...


But you are doing no different here. The whole topic is about the very thing it criticizes, which is why I say it's a matter of balance.


No what I am doing is very different. I am providing information that people can choose to accept or not. It may be right for them or not, but I do not presume to choose what is or is not right for them. I provide my perspective but leave it to them to accept it or not.

There is a very big difference between providing information/advice/instruction and in advising the other person that he/she is naive, immature, stupid, stubborn, gullible, vulnerable, too soft hearted or whatever because s/he sees it differently or does not respond in the manner we would have him/her respond.

Quote:
Quote:
But if the 'meddlers' can be convinced to allow somebody else the strength of their own feelings and point of view, it is possible that the 'meddlers' might come to see that somebody else's point of view is actually right for that somebody else.


The same can be said for the meddlers and the meddled, you are just choosing which to judge and which to try to change.


This is to say that what I tell you I believe to be right for me. I leave it to the others to decide if it is right for them. The whole object is to be able to learn to communicate and even disagree non judgmentally. Once we can do that, we have the ability to understand and even appreciate that the way the other person is is right for him/her. You are informing. That is valid. You are not requiring or asking the other person to change anything at all.

Quote:
Quote:
The two might never agree, but the 'offender' stops pushing and pulling and insulting and beating up somebody trying to make that somebody into something different from who he or she naturally is.


In other words you may be able to change them though the meddling.
[/quote]

LOL. Well I suppose that is one way of looking at it but again the object is honestly not to change people but to inform people and explain the benefits the information can provide them. I hope that the information is useful to those who receive it, but I dont' tell anybody how to utilize it. Unless they are my temperament type, they will almost certain process the information differently and utilize it differently that I do anyway.

Is it possible to hope that something is useful to others without an intention to change them?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 11:22 pm
@Foxfyre,
cool way to let yourself off the hook for browbeating people into changing into what you want them to be, this rationalization that you don't know or control the individuals. You know how people generally are, you know how the people you are speaking to generally are, and you are telling them that they generally are living wrong.

the difference between education/indoctrination/programing is in degrees not in mission, calling it education does NOT make it all good.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 11:35 pm
@hawkeye10,
"Good" is in the eye of the beholder I think. I can separate useful information from the requirement that people appreciate it. It is sort of like separating providing information but allowing somebody to be who they are versus making an insulting judgment about them because they don't feel or respond as you do re that information.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 11:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
I haven't seen Fox browbeat anyone or try to change anyone for that matter. If there was any browbeating going on, it was the other way around.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 11:41 pm
@Montana,
Hey Montana. Can't sleep again? Smile

(muttering that I don't know why I'm still up either...)
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 11:46 pm
@Foxfyre,
Hey Fox, I took a 3 hour nap, so I'm up for the night. I'm a natural night owl anyway, so this is actually my first thing in the morning.
When I move closer to the city, I think I'm going to find myself another job on the graveyard shift.
How you doing tonight?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 03:21:07