Persuade me

[Mr.Burke]

I am inclined to think, based on skimming this thread (and not examining it in detail) that the answer is "to see what you reply."

This may seem obvious, but to me, it is worth making a couple distinctions:
- I do not think the answer is "to have a genuine discussion and to personally examine your (plural, general public) replies."
- Also, I do not think the answer is based on "a genuine desire to build such relationships because Mr Burke feels they would fulfill some void in his life/psyche."

My intuition may be wrong. I think it was once.....

Hmm. I agree with everything in this post.

Other people provide perspective that I might not have myself. I can use them as a source of information that I use to make a decision and formulate a more accurate belief.

 

[Mr.Burke]

Let me ask you a question. Dropping people for the moment, do you feel "bonded" at all to this thread? Or if you wish to abandon it, did you feel bonded (a strong connection) at least for the moment? My guess is you did because you were very careful and must have been interested in replying because you did so for practically everyone who talked to you.

No, I am not "connected" to this thread. I desire the potential knowledge that I can gain from the thread, but it wouldn't matter to me if the thread suddenly disappeared or something. I reply to people because I'm interesting in getting answers and I like to argue.

 

[dark]

"WELL DONE MISTER BURKE, WELL DONE!!!"

 

[dark]

But to the point, there is no logical reason for any emotion, it can't be delt with that way, now you INTPs stop glareing at me like that. Emotion can sometimes have the appearance of logic, but it isn't, it is like a two sided coin, you can only have one choice, but sometimes things may blur and it seems as though you are seeing the other in one. Some things can be delt with logically, others emotional. You can not use emotion to understand logic, likewise, you can not use logic to understand emotion. They are two different things of the same thing, one is how this will affect me or others, the other is cold (don't really like that since it implies emotion is better than logic) assertion of how this could have the most benefical outcome.

Both those are generalizations, but that is how I see it, also I need a better definition of the logical one.

 

[Mr.Burke]

But to the point, there is no logical reason for any emotion, it can't be delt with that way, now you INTPs stop glareing at me like that. Emotion can sometimes have the appearance of logic, but it isn't, it is like a two sided coin, you can only have one choice, but sometimes things may blur and it seems as though you are seeing the other in one. Some things can be delt with logically, others emotional. You can not use emotion to understand logic, likewise, you can not use logic to understand emotion. They are two different things of the same thing, one is how this will affect me or others, the other is cold (don't really like that since it implies emotion is better than logic) assertion of how this could have the most benefical outcome.

Both those are generalizations, but that is how I see it, also I need a better definition of the logical one.

I suspected that much. I ask anyways to make sure.

 

[Minuend]

But to the point, there is no logical reason for any emotion, it can't be delt with that way, now you INTPs stop glareing at me like that. Emotion can sometimes have the appearance of logic, but it isn't, it is like a two sided coin, you can only have one choice, but sometimes things may blur and it seems as though you are seeing the other in one. Some things can be delt with logically, others emotional. You can not use emotion to understand logic, likewise, you can not use logic to understand emotion. They are two different things of the same thing, one is how this will affect me or others, the other is cold (don't really like that since it implies emotion is better than logic) assertion of how this could have the most benefical outcome.

Both those are generalizations, but that is how I see it, also I need a better definition of the logical one.

No, they are very much intertwined.

Why do you want things to be logical? Does it not give you some satisfaction to see that things make sense? It's a feeling that makes you want to put emotions aside and see it from a logical perspective. It sounds ironic, but most things usually are.

Emotions are a great tool to understand people better. You can better make logical deductions when you can actually understand what other people feel.

I think you are confusing faint emotions with abscence of them. They are there influencing you every step of the way.

You are not really giving any arguments to why logic and emotions are so separated.

Tch, I have to go to work.

 

[BigApplePi]

No, I am not "connected" to this thread. I desire the potential knowledge that I can gain from the thread, but it wouldn't matter to me if the thread suddenly disappeared or something. I reply to people because I'm interesting in getting answers and I like to argue.

You like to argue? I'll give you an argument. You just said, "I desire", "I'm interested", "I like" -- and all in one paragraph. Those are feelings. You are not a machine. Machines do not desire, like or take interest. So when you say, "it wouldn't matter to me if the thread suddenly disappeared", you are contradicting yourself. It WOULD matter but you pretend and you won't realize it.

How THAT for logic? I have more to say, but you are not interested???

 

[cheese]

It's worthwhile because it provides you with more available resources (ie people who care about you, and will therefore help you out) in times of need - when you're physically incapacitated and in great need of medical assistance, for example, it is very inconvenient to be alone/have no one to rely on.

It provides you with more available resources because (as Jennywocky pointed out) people who feel no return on their emotional resources are more likely to to stop investing and leave than those who feel reciprocation (thus making purely practical relationships on your end less beneficial long-term than the more typical emotional model).

Being able to emotionally invest in another also makes it easier for you to maintain the relationship, thus providing additional longevity to your pool of resources. Most people are lucky this way, because the emotional response is automatic (grows with time - EyeSeeCold) and even compels them to seek relationships. People without this switch turned on will naturally find it more difficult to form self-perpetuating support networks; the lack of a natural drive not rooted in conscious reasoning makes it necessary to provide such a conscious reason, which is usually problematic.

However, honestly speaking it's likely that - as long as you live in a relatively populated area with easy access to help - there'll always be some bleeding heart out to conscript you into the ranks of humanity, usually by inducing gratitude through a generous act. In which case investing emotionally may be of no benefit to you at all (especially if you find it impossible).

I don't think emotional reasons (feeling loved, enjoying group solidarity, physical comfort etc) are really relevant at this stage in your personality since they have nothing to resonate with and are unlikely to impel you-as-you-are-now to seek out emotional bonds.

However, if you're interested in new experiences it'll probably be worth trying out.

Suggestion if you *are* interested:
Since none of your actions so far have led to any bonds (none that are conscious, at least) it's probably a good idea to reverse your MO as much as possible.
Eg
Aim to always end an exchange with whoever-you-choose (WYC) with them receiving the greater benefit, rather than yourself.

Spend additional time with WYC, ie for reasons other than practical benefit.

Use information gathered about WYC to benefit them, rather than yourself.


Hey, are you the one that talked about an old flame that you saw in the neighbourhood? And when she was around everything you'd felt previously flared up, but you thought it was only because you wanted to regain power over her? (curious)

 

[Mr.Burke]

You like to argue? I'll give you an argument. You just said, "I desire", "I'm interested", "I like" -- and all in one paragraph. Those are feelings. You are not a machine. Machines do not desire, like or take interest. So when you say, "it wouldn't matter to me if the thread suddenly disappeared", you are contradicting yourself. It WOULD matter but you pretend and you won't realize it.

How THAT for logic? I have more to say, but you are not interested???

Uh... okay. You got me. Can't blame a guy for trying though. I tried to play it off!

Come on, up top!

 

[Mr.Burke]

It's worthwhile because it provides you with more available resources (ie people who care about you, and will therefore help you out) in times of need - when you're physically incapacitated and in great need of medical assistance, for example, it is very inconvenient to be alone/have no one to rely on.

It provides you with more available resources because (as Jennywocky pointed out) people who feel no return on their emotional resources are more likely to to stop investing and leave than those who feel reciprocation (thus making purely practical relationships on your end less beneficial long-term than the more typical emotional model).

Being able to emotionally invest in another also makes it easier for you to maintain the relationship, thus providing additional longevity to your pool of resources. Most people are lucky this way, because the emotional response is automatic (grows with time - EyeSeeCold) and even compels them to seek relationships. People without this switch turned on will naturally find it more difficult to form self-perpetuating support networks; the lack of a natural drive not rooted in conscious reasoning makes it necessary to provide such a conscious reason, which is usually problematic.

However, honestly speaking it's likely that - as long as you live in a relatively populated area with easy access to help - there'll always be some bleeding heart out to conscript you into the ranks of humanity, usually by inducing gratitude through a generous act. In which case investing emotionally may be of no benefit to you at all (especially if you find it impossible).

I don't think emotional reasons (feeling loved, enjoying group solidarity, physical comfort etc) are really relevant at this stage in your personality since they have nothing to resonate with and are unlikely to impel you-as-you-are-now to seek out emotional bonds.

However, if you're interested in new experiences it'll probably be worth trying out.

Suggestion if you *are* interested:
Since none of your actions so far have led to any bonds (none that are conscious, at least) it's probably a good idea to reverse your MO as much as possible.
Eg
Aim to always end an exchange with whoever-you-choose (WYC) with them receiving the greater benefit, rather than yourself.

Spend additional time with WYC, ie for reasons other than practical benefit.

Use information gathered about WYC to benefit them, rather than yourself.


Hey, are you the one that talked about an old flame that you saw in the neighbourhood? And when she was around everything you'd felt previously flared up, but you thought it was only because you wanted to regain power over her? (curious)

Hmm. There are not a lot of people who care about me other than family members. I don't know how caring works in the first place. It is true that it would be a greater pool of resources, but it seems to me like it's not worth the effort for the time and energy that it requires. So it's not economical.

Also, I've actually obtained more benefit out of false emotional relationships (one sided) and practical ones. In this case, it involves people buying me games.

If most people are lucky. then that hardly seems like luck. If I am correct, luck refers to unusually good fortune. Or at least just not misfortune.

The easiest way to be manipulated is to leave yourself completely vulnerable and gullible. I don't think its a good idea to overextend into someone else's territory. I know this from experience.

And for the "old flame" thing, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about.

 

[cheese]

Hmm. There are not a lot of people who care about me other than family members. I don't know how caring works in the first place. It is true that it would be a greater pool of resources, but it seems to me like it's not worth the effort for the time and energy that it requires. So it's not economical.

That's why I said the thing about 'luck' - what I meant was they have it easier than people without typical emotional-response patterns, 'it' being the accumulation of resources. Of course it's not economical from your standpoint, because you don't (appear to) possess the requisite mechanisms. Whereas for them, it's almost unavoidable to seek out relationships - it would expend more effort (and significantly decrease satisfaction) not to invest in them, because of the way they're wired.

If you could learn to activate this in yourself, it might provide long-term benefits through the start of an automated regulation of relationships that serves to keep the other party happy (and thus around longer).

Also, I've actually obtained more benefit out of false emotional relationships (one sided) and practical ones. In this case, it involves people buying me games.

Assuming total physical security, I'd say this is a sensible position to take. However it's unwise to assume that (or maybe I'm paranoid). In terms of positive benefits (gifts, etc?), effort expended into keeping the other party emotionally fed is less important, since gifts can be and are provided through superficial relationships, where your emotional play-acting is less likely to be seen through. And when they are and the offended party leaves, it's not too difficult to establish a new feeding-ground and receive the same benefits. In this way, benefits do not diminish over time, though the sources change.

However, reliability (having someone you can count on in times of trouble) usually requires long-term relationships, and these do expose emotional weaknesses (eg not having any ), which do cause the erosion of said relationships and therefore result in a depleted resource pool. Which weakens your physical security position, long-term.

But again, physical security/safety may not be an issue of concern for you at present, for whatever reason. It is for me so I can't ignore it; maybe it wasn't relevant to your life. (Although really, I can't see how it wouldn't be relevant to anyone but a masochist/someone with incredibly densensitised nerve-endings.)

The easiest way to be manipulated is to leave yourself completely vulnerable and gullible. I don't think its a good idea to overextend into someone else's territory. I know this from experience.

Not sure what this was about. Also, you seem to be extrapolating from your own activities and inferring similar motives in others. Having already deduced that you are noticeably different to others in relationships, I can't see why you'd assume the majority of whatever in-depth emotional investment you might undertake would result in the same losses others have experienced through you.

And for the "old flame" thing, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about.

Could've been someone else. Actually, you might be someone else entirely, someone totally different to the file of you I have in my mental cabinet. Dammit, this keeps happening!

*edit
Perhaps you were the one that started a thread on how you'd like to approach girls? (In a stalker-like manner, or something. I don't recall correctly.)

 

[Mr.Burke]

But again, physical security/safety may not be an issue of concern for you at present, for whatever reason. It is for me so I can't ignore it; maybe it wasn't relevant to your life. (Although really, I can't see how it wouldn't be relevant to anyone but a masochist/someone with incredibly densensitised nerve-endings.)

Not sure what this was about. Also, you seem to be extrapolating from your own activities and inferring similar motives in others. Having already deduced that you are noticeably different to others in relationships, I can't see why you'd assume the majority of whatever in-depth emotional investment you might undertake would result in the same losses others have experienced through you.

*edit
Perhaps you were the one that started a thread on how you'd like to approach girls? (In a stalker-like manner, or something. I don't recall correctly.)

Yes, I am very desensitized and unsympathetic.

I am basing my theories on losses based on what losses I've actually taken. These losses were not really anything that would make me care, but I understand the nature and general dynamics of relationships based on observing behind a "proxy". I basically manipulated some people over the internet to buy me stuff (being cutesy as a female is an easy victory), and then eventually just started attacking anyone who I knew had vulnerabilities. I was an infamous manipulator of a certain group, and I've had thread dedicated entirely to discussing me and my motives. I know it is the internet, but I've seen the same "drama" in person from other people. I know that people treat me like a messiah after they know me, and then I send them to hell. That's where I got that from.

Yes, I did start a thread about that. It was a hypothetical thread which was an inquiry on how people would respond to certain situations. None of it was actually performed (I never intended to in the first place). Consider it to be mental masturbation.

 

[BigApplePi]

Yes, I am very desensitized and unsympathetic.

I am basing my theories on losses based on what losses I've actually taken. These losses were not really anything that would make me care, but I understand the nature and general dynamics of relationships based on observing behind a "proxy". I basically manipulated some people over the internet to buy me stuff (being cutesy as a female is an easy victory), and then eventually just started attacking anyone who I knew had vulnerabilities. I was am infamous manipulator of a certain group, and I've had thread dedicated entirely to discussing me and my motives. I know it is the internet, but I've seen the same "drama" in person from other people. I know that people treat me like a messiah after they know me, and then I send them to hell. That's where I got that from.

Yes, I did start a thread about that. It was a hypothetical thread which was an inquiry on how people would respond to certain situations. None of it was actually performed (I never intended to in the first place). Consider it to be mental masturbation.

I can see playing games and playing games with people as being fun. The problem occurs when you exit the game. The person may remember whether they were treated well or with discomfort, fairly or unfairly. Manipulation as with games can only go so for. As human beings, we are complicated -- as you will see if you continue this thread.

One way to avoid bad repercussions though is to keep one's distance. One way to explore oneself is to get involved. I do both. I can keep a certain distance on the internet. Occasionally I get involved. I can try to be close in real life. Not easy for an INTP like I presume I am. You revealed something about yourself when you mentioned those puppies (assuming you were telling the truth). No one I recall said anything unfavorable to you.

You mentioned some losses you've taken. What losses were those?

 

[Mr.Burke]

You mentioned some losses you've taken. What losses were those?

What I meant by that is that people generally removed/blocked me for various reasons that have to do with my personality. They weren't really "losses". They were more like "if this was a legitimate situation, and I were to act this way, this would be the result". So you might call them simulated losses.

Well, on a different note, I did lose hope for legitimately establishing any form of connection.

 

[Lobstrich]

Sorry.. Couldn't help but laugh at this thread. It seems like you're trying to fit yourself into the apathetic, non-relationship, hard to deal with emotions INTP stereotype.
"Could you explain to me the logic of genuine relationships"


So either you don't want to talk to people at all. Or you just want to have alot of aquaintances and no real friends. If it's the former, I don't get why you are here on the forum. And if it's the latter, join Facebook or something. You'll have 1000+ aquaintances in no time. And no 'genuine relationship'

 

[dark]

@ Minuend, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. They can not be intertwined because you can not understand the other with one. You must combine them both to make things useful. Emotion can not be used to understand logic, logic can not be used to understand emotion. Try it. They are both different ways of looking at things, which when both are placed together a balance can be achieved, with only one side of this, a person is only hindering themselves. I think that should help to make my statement clearer, if not I don't know what to say.

Oh and neither logic nor emotion can be placed on a standard above the other, one is not better than the other, but each has its own purpose where it thrives, and it is up to the individual to understand where these fit.

 

[BigApplePi]

What I meant by that is that people generally removed/blocked me for various reasons that have to do with my personality. They weren't really "losses". They were more like "if this was a legitimate situation, and I were to act this way, this would be the result". So you might call them simulated losses.

Well, on a different note, I did lose hope for legitimately establishing any form of connection.

Do you mean connection with anyone in general or connection with someone on this forum on this thread? I think a connection is possible here but emotional connections take time. Why? Because one has to check out people's interest and reactions to you. That means a back-and-forth. It means predictability. Without predictibility there can't be trust.

Take a look at cheese and Minuend and Jennywocky what they say or how they say it, for example. Don't they seem warmer than the average poster? That, to me, means they are eligible candidates for some good connection. I would tend to trust them.

Would you agree or be indifferent? Me? I am very analytical. I'm not very good with emotions and have to be careful expressing them -- take chances. Perhaps I identify with some of the things you've said so far. Not sure.

 

[Lobstrich]

Take a look at cheese and Minuend and Jennywocky what they say or how they say it, for example. Don't they seem warmer than the average poster? That, to me, means they are eligible candidates for some good connection. I would tend to trust them.

Are you saying that I'm not nice? I am offended!

 

[BigApplePi]

@ Minuend, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. They can not be intertwined because you can not understand the other with one. You must combine them both to make things useful. Emotion can not be used to understand logic, logic can not be used to understand emotion. Try it. They are both different ways of looking at things, which when both are placed together a balance can be achieved, with only one side of this, a person is only hindering themselves. I think that should help to make my statement clearer, if not I don't know what to say.

Oh and neither logic nor emotion can be placed on a standard above the other, one is not better than the other, but each has its own purpose where it thrives, and it is up to the individual to understand where these fit.

Dark I know you were replying to Minuend but I want to jump in here. I think Minuend is right in that logic and emotions in humans are intertwined but they are so in usage. They are separate in foundation. Logic treats order while emotions treat value.

A computer is solely logic and deals with ordered events. Emotions deal with how to value those events. A hot stove has logical aspects according to physics. But if we love it because it cooks good food or fear it because it burns us, those are evaluations.

 

[cheese]

Yes, I am very desensitized and unsympathetic.

I'm actually talking about physical pain; not sure if you got that.

I don't know how much experience you have with physical discomfort, but I find it extremely unpleasant and would go to great lengths to avoid it. In fact, that's one of the reasons I've recently started taking an active interest in relationships, in order to have resources available for hospital trips, medical bills, etc. It's necessary for me though.

I will need a support network of some kind when I'm old as well.

There are other drives at work, but the need to have help available when necessary is one of the stronger ones.

I am basing my theories on losses based on what losses I've actually taken. These losses were not really anything that would make me care, but I understand the nature and general dynamics of relationships based on observing behind a "proxy". I basically manipulated some people over the internet to buy me stuff (being cutesy as a female is an easy victory), and then eventually just started attacking anyone who I knew had vulnerabilities. I was an infamous manipulator of a certain group, and I've had thread dedicated entirely to discussing me and my motives. I know it is the internet, but I've seen the same "drama" in person from other people. I know that people treat me like a messiah after they know me, and then I send them to hell. That's where I got that from.

(You sound exactly like someone I knew once, who used to hang around here a lot.)

That's what I was saying - your behaviour is not the norm, therefore it does not make sense to expect it.

Although of course, personal experience does tend to inform expectations.

But your personal experience also tells you that it would be irrational to base your expectations of other people solely on your own tendencies.

Yes, I did start a thread about that. It was a hypothetical thread which was an inquiry on how people would respond to certain situations. None of it was actually performed (I never intended to in the first place). Consider it to be mental masturbation.

Yeah, I get that. So I've got some documents on you right at least; cool.

 

[BigApplePi]

Are you saying that I'm not nice? I am offended!

Lobstrich. In no way am I saying you are not nice. I'm not saying you are not nice. So you are offended! Are you trying to get me to take offense at you being offended?

Oh. I forget to say, "hi Lobtrich." What's happening? Plans?

 

[Words]

A universal "prize" in having relationships is mental stimulation. If you want stimulation, then form the most efficient(out of the most direct) bonds you can. Your value for physical objects is nil compared to your value for this abstraction.

----

Our guide in understanding anything is really just logic. The only difference between understanding emotion and other systems is their standards/rules.

To logically deal with emotions means to adapt to the standard of emotion. Applying a standard of one system to another is illogical.

Similar to Math, Emotion operates within rules. And similar to math, if one identifies the rules of emotion, one can manipulate the variables.

If one is more in tune with a standard over another, that person will understand one thing over another.

Logic is broader than you may think it is.

 

[BigApplePi]

Words. I agree with just about everything you've said. Can you name any logical rules for any emotion of your choice?

 

[Lobstrich]

Lobstrich. In no way am I saying you are not nice. I'm not saying you are not nice. So you are offended! Are you trying to get me to take offense at you being offended?

Oh. I forget to say, "hi Lobtrich." What's happening? Plans?

Haha, no don't worry. I'm not offended or trying to make you take offense!

And not much is happening. I'm quite bored to be honest! How about over there? Anything worth mentioning? Heh.

 

[BigApplePi]

Haha, no don't worry. I'm not offended or trying to make you take offense!

And not much is happening. I'm quite bored to be honest! How about over there? Anything worth mentioning? Heh.

Yes plenty worth mentioning but when can I find time to mention it? I want to present a thread on "How to understand everything no matter what." If anything I'm over stimulated trying to do too many things. So I'm the opposite of bored, whatever word for that is.

I've thought the secret to not being bored is to be involved. But having said that, I'm not sure how to advise to get involved. "Fools jump in where angels fear to tread" the saying goes. I'd say study up on something. Then try it out on someone. Their reaction will not bore you.

BTW you know FWIW I'm fond of you.

-----------

Afterthought: Here's a project for you. Go over the threads on these boards. Find something, one post only you think is dull or something close to it. I will tell you something interesting about it. IOW, not boring.

 

[Lobstrich]

Yes plenty worth mentioning but when can I find time to mention it? I want to present a thread on "How to understand everything no matter what." If anything I'm over stimulated trying to do too many things. So I'm the opposite of bored, whatever word for that is.

I've thought the secret to not being bored is to be involved. But having said that, I'm not sure how to advise to get involved. "Fools jump in where angels fear to tread" the saying goes. I'd say study up on something. Then try it out on someone. Their reaction will not bore you.

BTW you know FWIW I'm fond of you.

-----------

Afterthought: Here's a project for you. Go over the threads on these boards. Find something, one post only you think is dull or something close to it. I will tell you something interesting about it. IOW, not boring.

Of course you can get involved. Bot boredom comes from what knowing to get involved in! (in my opinion)
And thank you, It's always worth something when someone else enjoy's something you have to give.

And on your project. Kellhus's 'texting' thread. Which I've also replied to.
I find his thread useless and I don't really see the motivation for it. Therefor I find it boring, hehe.

 

[Mr.Burke]

That's what I was saying - your behaviour is not the norm, therefore it does not make sense to expect it.

Although of course, personal experience does tend to inform expectations.

But your personal experience also tells you that it would be irrational to base your expectations of other people solely on your own tendencies.

Hmm. I've already tried the "don't expect anything from other people" mentality. What I end up getting is a lot of nothing. If I were to try to say that I'm a lot different that most people, then I would get a lot of people arguing that I'm not some "perfectly unique snowflake". But if I were to say that I'm a very normal and standard person, then basically people tend to argue that I'm some sort of inhuman being and such.

Lowering my expectations does not make people more interesting, either.

 

[Mr.Burke]

Do you mean connection with anyone in general or connection with someone on this forum on this thread? I think a connection is possible here but emotional connections take time. Why? Because one has to check out people's interest and reactions to you. That means a back-and-forth. It means predictability. Without predictibility there can't be trust.

Take a look at cheese and Minuend and Jennywocky what they say or how they say it, for example. Don't they seem warmer than the average poster? That, to me, means they are eligible candidates for some good connection. I would tend to trust them.

Would you agree or be indifferent? Me? I am very analytical. I'm not very good with emotions and have to be careful expressing them -- take chances. Perhaps I identify with some of the things you've said so far. Not sure.

I was referring to a connection in general. I may share a lot of aspects with other INTPs, but I may also be very different in many important aspects. For the generic average person, I'm way too different to ever establish a connection on nearly any level.

I think the push/pull emotional game is a completely draining waste of time. I don't engage in romantic relationships. Mostly, I'm referring to "friendships". Predictability results in existential boredom. I don't suddenly trust people because they do the same things all the time either.

Yes, they seem warmer than some, but I also tend to cringe more to such people. Or nose laugh.

I may have emotions, but I don't necessarily express them in "normal" ways.

 

[Mr.Burke]

Sorry.. Couldn't help but laugh at this thread. It seems like you're trying to fit yourself into the apathetic, non-relationship, hard to deal with emotions INTP stereotype.
"Could you explain to me the logic of genuine relationships"


So either you don't want to talk to people at all. Or you just want to have alot of aquaintances and no real friends. If it's the former, I don't get why you are here on the forum. And if it's the latter, join Facebook or something. You'll have 1000+ aquaintances in no time. And no 'genuine relationship'

I don't agree with that black and white thinking. I'm here to get answers to questions because most people cannot even explain the most basic aspects of their behavior.

Acquaintances are quite useless because most of the time they are not ready to provide me with benefits. False relationships are much more successful for that. Facebook is too disgusting for me to even attempt to do anything with.

 

[BigApplePi]

And on your project. Kellhus's 'texting' thread. Which I've also replied to.
I find his thread useless and I don't really see the motivation for it. Therefor I find it boring, hehe.

Don't know that thread, nor the poster. Do you know how to copy a link to a relevant post there or else point me to it?

 

[BigApplePi]

I was referring to a connection in general. I may share a lot of aspects with other INTPs, but I may also be very different in many important aspects. For the generic average person, I'm way too different to ever establish a connection on nearly any level.

I think the push/pull emotional game is a completely draining waste of time. I don't engage in romantic relationships. Mostly, I'm referring to "friendships". Predictability results in existential boredom. I don't suddenly trust people because they do the same things all the time either.

Yes, they seem warmer than some, but I also tend to cringe more to such people. Or nose laugh.

I may have emotions, but I don't necessarily express them in "normal" ways.

I find this too abstract. You seem to be saying you are so different that you can't find anyone with anything in common to make contact. Are you different in a so called "bad" way that you don't care to say, or just different in very special unique way? You are right that if you don't put yourself out there others can't relate to you so there is little chance for contact. But I shouldn't talk. I don't put much out there either that much so I'm not sure of the answer. I do try though.

 

[Minuend]

Dark I know you were replying to Minuend but I want to jump in here. I think Minuend is right in that logic and emotions in humans are intertwined but they are so in usage. They are separate in foundation. Logic treats order while emotions treat value.

A computer is solely logic and deals with ordered events. Emotions deal with how to value those events. A hot stove has logical aspects according to physics. But if we love it because it cooks good food or fear it because it burns us, those are evaluations.

Yes. Also what Words said.

Yes, they seem warmer than some, but I also tend to cringe more to such people. Or nose laugh.

See that, people! I am so warm I make humans cringe!

 

[dark]

Hum, I must bad at explaining words, maybe a picture would help....

Ok here is what I am trying to say, emotion, logic are part of the same thing, they do the same functions, but in different ways, logic is the absence of emotion, and emotion is the absence of logic... I know that sounds odd, but finish reading the defined variables.


Emotion|---------------------|Logic

Both those work the same thing, well call it, interaction for an easy form of understanding.

In interaction, one can reason things through one of two ways, emotionally, how this works like you mentioned (BigApplePi) in the value of things. While logic is the relation of order as you mentioned.

As one in the same, since they both have the same purpose, but are both used in seperate times.

I will compare it to a truck and a car, but many will disagree with me. A car is good for driving day to day. A truck is good for moving things. A lot of people, use trucks for day to day driving and cars for moving things. They can serve the other function but not as good as the other. Emotion and Logic share as similair home. Some people try to solve things with emotion that can only be solved correctly with logic, and they try to solve with logic things that can only be solved with emotion.

Because of this, you can not look at emotion logically, and you can not look at logic emotionally, try it, if you have an answer to this sentence here, please tell me how.

 

[Minuend]

Sometimes the car will crash into the truck and deal massive damage but the truck won't notice 'cause it's all high on biofuel and don't even know that it's not on the road any longer. Other times the truck will drive right through the car, but one of the car wheels will stay inside the cargo and live there to grow and become a new volvo to revenge his fallen comrade.

I really shouldn't reply when I'm tirid <----- is warm smilehy face

 

[Lobstrich]

I don't agree with that black and white thinking. I'm here to get answers to questions because most people cannot even explain the most basic aspects of their behavior.

Acquaintances are quite useless because most of the time they are not ready to provide me with benefits. False relationships are much more successful for that. Facebook is too disgusting for me to even attempt to do anything with.

So what do you do? You don't enjoy genuine relationships (I.e 'real' friendships) And you don't enjoy acquaintances.
How do you communicate with the world?

Ooh, you enjoy false relationships? You're not an INTP, are you? =S

 

[Lobstrich]

Don't know that thread, nor the poster. Do you know how to copy a link to a relevant post there or else point me to it?

Sure; http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=8530

 

[BigApplePi]

Some people try to solve things with emotion that can only be solved correctly with logic, and they try to solve with logic things that can only be solved with emotion.

Because of this, you can not look at emotion logically, and you can not look at logic emotionally, try it, if you have an answer to this sentence here, please tell me how.

If logic represents order and emotion represents value, let's try that out. I believe there is an answer but I'm so tired right now and this is awfully difficult. Emotions and logic. Each one suffers from at least these flaws:
Emotion - is a crude measurement of reality. Can go way way off in logic.
Logic - suffers from false premises usually chosen by feelings. Not sure I have the best example here. Maybe someone can do better.

One can take emotions = value and say,
"It's logical because things should go that way. If it feels good or I feel it does bad, that's logical. Or even better, suppose I say,
"We want it. It's going to be this way. It's got to be this way."
When enough people hear that and it's said loud and long enough, and they hear no opposition, they will go along with it and it becomes its own logic. Mob rule has its own logic.

One can take "logic" and say,
"As long as they keep doing these bad things, look what will happen. These bad things will make things worse. Ever since they have been in office, the economy has gone further down hill. As long as I can't get a job, I will lose my home."
One's emotions get involved when the hear these things.

 

[cheese]

Hmm. I've already tried the "don't expect anything from other people" mentality. What I end up getting is a lot of nothing. If I were to try to say that I'm a lot different that most people, then I would get a lot of people arguing that I'm not some "perfectly unique snowflake". But if I were to say that I'm a very normal and standard person, then basically people tend to argue that I'm some sort of inhuman being and such.

Lowering my expectations does not make people more interesting, either.

Huh?

We seem to be totally missing each other on this thread.

I'm not saying 'don't expect anything from other people'; I'm saying that, yes, you are different (what does you admitting/denying this to anyone have to do with anything? I'm lost), and as a result it doesn't make sense to expect the same behaviour and motives you exhibit towards other people (manipulative/selfish) from other people.

I don't think it's necessary for you to prove or disprove your difference to others, and it's irrelevant to what we were talking about. Unless you were disagreeing with my assertion that you're significantly different to the majority, because previous discussions with other people have suggested you're neither normal nor hugely different?

My personal experience suggests this is usually the result of wishful thinking or the inability/unwillingness to acknowledge the possibility of something (in this case, someone) being genuinely out of the realm of one's own knowledge and experiences, and the subjective categories of reality derived from them.

 

[Mr.Burke]

Huh?

We seem to be totally missing each other on this thread.

I'm not saying 'don't expect anything from other people'; I'm saying that, yes, you are different (what does you admitting/denying this to anyone have to do with anything? I'm lost), and as a result it doesn't make sense to expect the same behaviour and motives you exhibit towards other people (manipulative/selfish) from other people.

I don't think it's necessary for you to prove or disprove your difference to others, and it's irrelevant to what we were talking about. Unless you were disagreeing with my assertion that you're significantly different to the majority, because previous discussions with other people have suggested you're neither normal nor hugely different?

My personal experience suggests this is usually the result of wishful thinking or the inability/unwillingness to acknowledge the possibility of something (in this case, someone) being genuinely out of the realm of one's own knowledge and experiences, and the subjective categories of reality derived from them.

Hmm. I think I've got a solution here. I'll forget my experiences and base my thinking entirely on a "possibly of something". As if that isn't wishful thinking.

There's something I find hard to convey here. I'll try to explain it in at least a crude barely understandable manner.

You have a boyfriend, I believe. But the things you enjoy about him are most likely not the things I would enjoy in someone. Yes, I may have different preferences here, but they are so far different from everyone I've ever known that it seems like my standards are impossible. So to hope for the possibility of something impossible is just some form of false hope. Or wishful thinking if you prefer.

So essentially my level of intolerance of people does not result in any form of relationship.

Also, I expect other people to be manipulative and selfish because that's basically all I've ever seen in people with very few exceptions. It's human nature to care about yourself. It's a matter of survival. It's also human nature to use others for your own benefits. To go against human nature is to try to be something "greater than human". Also known as altruism and idealism. Though I am sure you can argue that we only got this far in civilization due to altruism and cooperation.

There are obviously experiences and knowledge outside of my experience, but I do not wish to pursue them without a good foundation. There needs to be obvious rewards for pursuing relationships (like some sort of business agreement) and not some faint idea of hope. Hope never got me anything but despair.

 

[dark]

If logic represents order and emotion represents value, let's try that out. I believe there is an answer but I'm so tired right now and this is awfully difficult. Emotions and logic. Each one suffers from at least these flaws:
Emotion - is a crude measurement of reality. Can go way way off in logic.
Logic - suffers from false premises usually chosen by feelings. Not sure I have the best example here. Maybe someone can do better.

One can take emotions = value and say,
"It's logical because things should go that way. If it feels good or I feel it does bad, that's logical. Or even better, suppose I say,
"We want it. It's going to be this way. It's got to be this way."
When enough people hear that and it's said loud and long enough, and they hear no opposition, they will go along with it and it becomes its own logic. Mob rule has its own logic.

One can take "logic" and say,
"As long as they keep doing these bad things, look what will happen. These bad things will make things worse. Ever since they have been in office, the economy has gone further down hill. As long as I can't get a job, I will lose my home."
One's emotions get involved when the hear these things.

2 =/= 3, doesn't matter if the majority believes point A = point B. If point B =/= point A then their view is not logical, they can structure it to look like logic, but it comes down to not being logic, like I posted before, one can look like the other at times, but that does not make them mix.

I know I try to logically explain emotions, but you can't. Emotion can only be reasoned with emotion and logic can only be reasoned with logic.

 

[Words]

Words. Can you name any logical rules for any emotion of your choice?

I don't consciously know as much rules of emotions as well as I know rules of math but I'll try:

In math, there is the rule of equation:

2 + 2 = 4, therefore, 2 = 4 - 2.

In emotion, there is the rule of "situational effect" (???)

Though it varies by degree, the situation always affects the emotion of the person; therefore, when dealing with a person, always take prior consideration of the surroundings.

A rule for a single emotion? Sadness is the result of negative stimulus? And negative is defined by values?

I'm way too different to ever establish a connection on nearly any level.

And how did you reach this conclusion?

I will compare it to a truck and a car, but many will disagree with me. A car is good for driving day to day. A truck is good for moving things. A lot of people, use trucks for day to day driving and cars for moving things. They can serve the other function but not as good as the other. Emotion and Logic share as similair home. Some people try to solve things with emotion that can only be solved correctly with logic, and they try to solve with logic things that can only be solved with emotion.

Because of this, you can not look at emotion logically, and you can not look at logic emotionally, try it, if you have an answer to this sentence here, please tell me how.

I think the problem is the vague definition of logic/emotion. In order to explain my point, I will ask a question. If your goal was to comfort someone, would you judge by the logic of your actions, or the 'emotion' of your actions? As oppose to emotion, which is a standard of reasonable decision, logic is the measurement of the rationality of decision(which is relative to standard, which is relative to intention). In a situation of emotion, how much you understand emotion defines the logic of your actions.

As one in the same, since they both have the same purpose, but are both used in seperate times.

Do they really have the same purpose? Even if we say say logic = math, how much knowledge of math would help in a situation of emotion? But I guess I'm arguing that utility defines purpose. Although, how else would it fit?

Haha, this made me think of a grown man crying in order to fix a flat tire. But, who knows? Maybe the problem wasn't the tire, maybe he needed a release from stress or something.

I know I try to logically explain emotions, but you can't. Emotion can only be reasoned with emotion and logic can only be reasoned with logic.

You use the word reason in measuring emotion. Try typing 'define: reason' in google, maybe you will see logic? Or maybe that's not the point here...

...Emotion is interesting because it tends to serve as the foundation of many "why questions":

"Why are you working?"

"I need to feed my family."

"Why do you need to feed them?"

"I love them."

"Why do you love them?"

"Ahh...err...because we're family?"

"Because they're family, you love them? How does that make 'sense'(using empirical standard)?"

"That's just the way it is."

It seem that emotion is one of the machines that produces values, and that Values are inherently logical.

 

[Mr.Burke]

And how did you reach this conclusion?

I'm basing it on all the people I can think of. There's a whole world of issues present behind this.

For the most part, what I mean by different is that I'm very intolerant. I'm intolerant of the most basic things like people who play instruments. I dislike people who use certain words like "pussy" (the insult as well as the slang sexual term) or use phrases like "Take it easy".

Those are examples of very minor things, but from what I've seen they start to add up to the point where I don't really see any redeeming value in investing time in a person with too many bothersome aspects.

 

[Untamed]

If you take the body of current scientific knowledge and it's history of development as an assumption, then you can answer this question.

Our knowledge of physics and chemistry lets us know that the universe is made out of the same building blocks. This includes life, our bodies, and our minds. Based on the past discoveries of science I believe we will someday fully understand the human mind on a component level. This means we could build or alter brains. This would include our memories, morals, beliefs, knowledge, and emotions.

Assuming we could distill down the pattern of elements that triggers a specific emotion, what then are emotions? They would be components that could be used like logical elements. If conditions are controlled and Pattern A is created in Position B, then Emotion C will always occur.

Now add in the history of our evolution as a species and compare it to other animals.

Emotional Bonding isn't a law of the universe, but rather an evolved behavior. It is the critical part of herding and thus social behavior.

Many animals now and in the past are/were very individualistic (some even eat their babies or vice-versa).
This also includes fighting for territory and ultimately resources.
These animals always had a hard and short lifespan, so only thrived when resources were plentiful.

Compare this to animals that gradually evolved emotional bonding. This allows them to form a group (herding) and
cooperate on fighting against common enemies or divide labor.
These animals could out survive the individualistic ones.
Emotional bonding is often considered irrational, but really needs to be put into a different context. A group that emotionally bonds is becoming as one organism, fighting for a pooled set of resources.

Using this idea think about the cells in your body. Why do they tolerate and help each other instead of fighting to use up all the resources? Why do some cells sacrifice themselves to protect the others? Are they emotionally bonded? No, they are chemically bonded. So then what is the difference between emotionally bonded organisms and chemically bonded cells? Simply the method of information transfer.

Emotional bonding has the extra step of sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell, which is then translated into chemical messages by the brain and nervous system. The level of control that the higher brain has over these basic functions isn't fully understood. It is known that various people can control blood flow, body heat, and even pain reception. So it is reasonable to assume emotions can be controlled and/or suppressed in a similar way.

Ultimately the choice to emotionally bond with someone (or not to) could be based on these questions.

Would I want to become a single organism with this person? or
Would I be ok sharing a body with that person?

Much harder to answer than "Should my cells cooperate, so that I can have hands". You know the benefits of your cells cooperating, because you have hands. Additionally, your hands don't just decide to fall off and run away one day, like a human can.

The only logical reason I can think of is to fulfill your genetic programming. This by itself is not a good reason, but your genes do provide you with the chemical motivation to do so.

 

[MatthewSawyer]

I can use them as a source of information that I use to make a decision and formulate a more accurate belief.

One thing I find frustrating about this thread is that it seems to me the whole premise of the original post, and its title are misleading and not genuine.

It seems to me that throughout this thread you attempt to shut down and contradict just about every response by citing yourself as different.

I see no indication that you indeed, genuinely want to be persuaded. It seems that your primary concern is illustrating how devoid you are of emotion and you are incapable of feeling anything. Two of the most probable scenarios I see is that you are preoccupied with ensuring you properly occupy the shell you have chosen, or that you are attempting to toy with some people in this thread. The only thing about this thread that provides any value to me is the side discussion others are having amoungst themselves.

While I do not recall you specifically stating you are INTP, your descriptions of yourself leave me to really doubt that you are INTP. The notion of manipulating people (even under the guise of trying to understand them) goes against most of what I understand as the fundamental nature of an INTP. In my view, the INTP tries to understand things by observation, abstraction of thought, and analysis. This implies somewhat passive actions. This contrasts greatly with the notion of manipulation (and possibly the torment) of others. Which again, makes me wonder what it is that you are doing here since you don't seem to be fostering a discussion like the other contributors.

So, here is my attempt at a contribution then:
It seems to me that you have chosen a shell for yourself and are doing everything you can make sure you fit into it. The similarities between the brief descriptions of yourself I have read and the characteristics of your chosen avatar are striking. Perhaps you should take some time and effort to understand yourself first and tear down the artificial fascade.

On a side note that may only be related in my view of things: I find myself looking at you in a similar way I would a "cutter" (someone with a habit for self injury). There are those who do it privately as a coping mechanism for deep rooted problems and there are those who do it in order to get attention and cry out. While both may have their own issues, I find one more genuine than the other.

 

[Mr.Burke]

One thing I find frustrating about this thread is that it seems to me the whole premise of the original post, and its title are misleading and not genuine.

It seems to me that throughout this thread you attempt to shut down and contradict just about every response by citing yourself as different.

I see no indication that you indeed, genuinely want to be persuaded. It seems that your primary concern is illustrating how devoid you are of emotion and you are incapable of feeling anything. Two of the most probable scenarios I see is that you are preoccupied with ensuring you properly occupy the shell you have chosen, or that you are attempting to toy with some people in this thread. The only thing about this thread that provides any value to me is the side discussion others are having amoungst themselves.

While I do not recall you specifically stating you are INTP, your descriptions of yourself leave me to really doubt that you are INTP. The notion of manipulating people (even under the guise of trying to understand them) goes against most of what I understand as the fundamental nature of an INTP. In my view, the INTP tries to understand things by observation, abstraction of thought, and analysis. This implies somewhat passive actions. This contrasts greatly with the notion of manipulation (and possibly the torment) of others. Which again, makes me wonder what it is that you are doing here since you don't seem to be fostering a discussion like the other contributors.

So, here is my attempt at a contribution then:
It seems to me that you have chosen a shell for yourself and are doing everything you can make sure you fit into it. The similarities between the brief descriptions of yourself I have read and the characteristics of your chosen avatar are striking. Perhaps you should take some time and effort to understand yourself first and tear down the artificial fascade.

On a side note that may only be related in my view of things: I find myself looking at you in a similar way I would a "cutter" (someone with a habit for self injury). There are those who do it privately as a coping mechanism for deep rooted problems and there are those who do it in order to get attention and cry out. While both may have their own issues, I find one more genuine than the other.

Dag nabbit dabbit nabbit! Alright. Okay. I'll tear down the uhh.. "fascade". Yes, I'm not really an INTP. Totally didn't get close to 100% on it. Lying to the test and all. I don't even know if I specifically said that I don't feel anything. I believe I asked for a reason to try to connect with other people.

But seriously, this happens every time. There's always the "lol you're not actually like this, pal" view (or the you're trying to fit into a mold argument). You're right. I'm putting on a front here. I can't believe my secret plans are revealed so easily! But wait, if I was looking to cry out for attention, wouldn't I make a thread titled, "Help, I need attention!" Oh, and all of that sarcasm was a defense mechanism. Because I wasn't loved by my mommy in the past or something. Get some perspective here. There's ways to actively test people's responses rather than passively.

 

[blogdogcop]

Apparently a lot of people (not talking about these boards) are upset over the fact that I do not develop or value "genuine relationships". They are specifically referring to the process of emotional bonding.

I would like someone to explain in a logical fashion as to why I should pursue such relationships. References to experiences could help as well.

hehe! if you too are an INTP (There is a small chance that you are not ) maybe the way i do it could work for you too.

I too do not really see any logical reason why i need to commit myself to emotional bonds or knick-knacks of my social life. A few good friends is more than enough. I'm lucky enough to have found some people who just accepted that part of me.

As for the rest, who were upset with this mindset of mine (just like in your situation)... are simply uninteresting and ignored for their lack of understanding.

But there ARE reasons why you should pursue SOME.
If you happen to be a the-hell-to-it-if-i-don't-gain-something-from-it kind of person like me, greed would be the reason. Hey, it's not bad to get greedy at times . In my few years of life there has been countless obstacles that i had to go through or destroy JUST to get SATISFACTION. I think it's part of being an INTP. I am obsessed with my desire to dissect even the most "stupid" thought in the world.

Okay so what im trying to say is, play a game of chess. Sometimes these people could be your pawns or knights in order for you to get a checkmate .

 

[Mr.Burke]

hehe! if you too are an INTP (There is a small chance that you are not ) maybe the way i do it could work for you too.

I too do not really see any logical reason why i need to commit myself to emotional bonds or knick-knacks of my social life. A few good friends is more than enough. I'm lucky enough to have found some people who just accepted that part of me.

As for the rest, who were upset with this mindset of mine (just like in your situation)... are simply uninteresting and ignored for their lack of understanding.

But there ARE reasons why you should pursue SOME.
If you happen to be a the-hell-to-it-if-i-don't-gain-something-from-it kind of person like me, greed would be the reason. Hey, it's not bad to get greedy at times . In my few years of life there has been countless obstacles that i had to go through or destroy JUST to get SATISFACTION. I think it's part of being an INTP. I am obsessed with my desire to dissect even the most "stupid" thought in the world.

Okay so what im trying to say is, play a game of chess. Sometimes these people could be your pawns or knights in order for you to get a checkmate .

Yeah, that's kind of what I've been doing. Messaging a bunch of people at once. Hustling all day. Etc. I know no loyalty. It's just that I don't care about benefits versus penalties of the "emotional" bond. I still falsely bond (lead people on) with people to the point where I can propose a bit of a business deal. I give them something, usually lewd images of females that they know (long story), and in return they buy me stuff. So that's my chess. It's really quite hilarious.

I actually enjoy creating false emotional bonds and then destroying them, only to form them again in order to basically test the other person. It leads to some interesting results.

 

[blogdogcop]

Yeah, that's kind of what I've been doing. Messaging a bunch of people at once. Hustling all day. Etc. I know no loyalty. It's just that I don't care about benefits versus penalties of the "emotional" bond. I still falsely bond (lead people on) with people to the point where I can propose a bit of a business deal. I give them something, usually lewd images of females that they know (long story), and in return they buy me stuff. So that's my chess. It's really quite hilarious.

Ehh if you're doing that then you're totally fine.
I think that's just your own way of satisfying yourself (or more like bringing an ounce of joy to this boring life). Benefits and risks are always part of the fun.

I actually enjoy creating false emotional bonds and then destroying them, only to form them again in order to basically test the other person. It leads to some interesting results.

Meh that's something i, too, enjoy. Wait, are you sure you're not my "other self"? LOL. It really isn't a form of manipulation, do you agree with me? [some do call it manipulation and go call me names like evil, blah blah grop tup impsss etc.]
It's more like observing how the person would react to a certain situation and keep it as useful information for furthur studies. hahahaha

oh well, it's not as if we have the same intentions. i'm just sharing my experience

 

[Mr.Burke]

Meh that's something i, too, enjoy. Wait, are you sure you're not my "other self"? LOL. It really isn't a form of manipulation, do you agree with me? [some do call it manipulation and go call me names like evil, blah blah grop tup impsss etc.]
It's more like observing how the person would react to a certain situation and keep it as useful information for furthur studies. hahahaha

oh well, it's not as if we have the same intentions. i'm just sharing my experience

Yeah, it's like that. I'll say something like, "You should buy me x." I wasn't being completely serious when I told that to the person, but if they take it seriously, then I will play along with it. Sometimes to get a true understanding of something you have to dismantle it to see what it is made of. Though people may deem it as immoral, I'm dedicated only to understanding and amusement. Even if it means causing another person a lot of psychological harm.

 

[blogdogcop]

Yeah, it's like that. I'll say something like, "You should buy me x." I wasn't being completely serious when I told that to the person, but if they take it seriously, then I will play along with it. Sometimes to get a true understanding of something you have to dismantle it to see what it is made of. Though people may deem it as immoral, I'm dedicated only to understanding and amusement. Even if it means causing another person a lot of psychological harm.

Yep. I agree with you. Nothing more could be said.