redbaron analyzes intpz

[redbaron]

@Adaire you sound like one of those guys who want a "stupid blonde" who they could fuck and dump afterwards.

You sound naive and lacking in emotional maturity.

 

[intpz]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

You sound naive and lacking in emotional maturity.

Could you answer these questions: how do you see me naive, what is emotional maturity according to you, what exactly do you see in me that says contradicts your definition of emotional maturity?

 

[redbaron]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

Could you answer these questions: how do you see me naive, what is emotional maturity according to you, what exactly do you see in me that says contradicts your definition of emotional maturity?

You seem to have a lack of maturity in dealing with any opinion that contradicts yours. I have specifically observed you draw conclusions about someone's personality based on something as innocuous as earrings. You often create threads about your day-to-day interactions, and how you struggle to understand the motivations behind your mother, uncle, teachers and colleagues.

You seem to have a genuinely pathetic desire to be, 'right' and to, 'win' in situations of simple discussion and sharing of ideas.

I've observed you struggle to do so on numerous occasions, which resulted in you resorting to the assertion that the other person's argument sounds like something an 'insert xSFx MBTI personality type here' would say - and is therefore incorrect on that basis.

I saw your response to my initial comment of your emotional immaturity coming from a mile away. I expected you to demand clarification on my behalf, so that you could then go on to prove how I'm totally wrong and that you are an emotionally stable and mature individual.

I've observed the same emotionally-driven retaliation numerous times. You respond to any sort of criticism by first demanding that the other person makes clear every specific reason they have for making that criticism and then - going to great lengths to refute them all.

You consistently allude to the fact of your being poor and that your intelligence goes to waste because of external factors. You have specifically created threads about how you are often frustrated by the perceived closed-mindedness of your family or colleagues.

Your seeming inability to keep your personal opinions of someone's character out of any debate leads me to believe that it bothers you greatly to be contradicted. You think of yourself as highly intelligent and anything that could be construed as undermining it (your intelligence) often results in a vehement response.

 

[intpz]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

You seem to have a lack of maturity in dealing with any opinion that contradicts yours. I have specifically observed you draw conclusions about someone's personality based on something as innocuous as earrings. You often create threads about your day-to-day interactions, and how you struggle to understand the motivations behind your mother, uncle, teachers and colleagues.

Or I observe the others in the same way you say you've observed me, and point that out without mentioning all the other observations, instead taking something as insignificant as earrings.

I don't have collegues, I haven't posted about teachers as a new thread (and rarely overall, especially if being specific), I haven't mentioned my uncle, and I don't believe I even know who he is. Mom, yes.

You seem to have a genuinely pathetic desire to be, 'right' and to, 'win' in situations of simple discussion and sharing of ideas.

I do see that sometimes I can come off like that due to me wanting to see how others see my point of view.

I've observed you struggle to do so on numerous occasions, which resulted in you resorting to the assertion that the other person's argument sounds like something an 'insert xSFx MBTI personality type here' would say - and is therefore incorrect on that basis.

I don't believe I've seriously said that he is incorrect because I think he is an xSFx. I have made a few comments like that, yes, but they shouldn't have been considered as serious ones, you shouldn't take everything people say directly.

I saw your response to my initial comment of your emotional immaturity coming from a mile away. I expected you to demand clarification on my behalf, so that you could then go on to prove how I'm totally wrong and that you are an emotionally stable and mature individual.

Good, you could have written a post prior to that then.

Wouldn't you ask for why someone thinks you're "insert adjective here?" I think you would, and most of the people around here would as well.

I've observed the same emotionally-driven retaliation numerous times. You respond to any sort of criticism by first demanding that the other person makes clear every specific reason they have for making that criticism and then - going to great lengths to refute them all.

I don't see how asking questions is emotionally-driven, especially when someone "accuses" you of something.

You consistently allude to the fact of your being poor and that your intelligence goes to waste because of external factors. You have specifically created threads about how you are often frustrated by the perceived closed-mindedness of your family or colleagues.

Once again, I don't have collegues.

So wait, are you saying that I shouldn't create threads about specific situations? That's interesting.

Your seeming inability to keep your personal opinions of someone's character out of any debate leads me to believe that it bothers you greatly to be contradicted. You think of yourself as highly intelligent and anything that could be construed as undermining it (your intelligence) often results in a vehement response.

It's a debate, we are supposed to say our opinions... That's the whole point of the debate - to say what we think, our ideas and opinions!

 

[redbaron]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

Or I observe the others in the same way you say you've observed me, and point that out without mentioning all the other observations, instead taking something as insignificant as earrings.

No. Your observations are often made during a debate, where you try to use your opinions of the person as grounds for discrediting what they say relative to the debate. I will cover why this is not relevant to a debate about something that wasn't initially about that persons character.

Yes you are correct in saying that what you do is similar (it isn't quite the same) to what I am currently doing. Context however, is important. As said, I will cover this later in the post*.

I don't have collegues, I haven't posted about teachers as a new thread (and rarely overall, especially if being specific), I haven't mentioned my uncle, and I don't believe I even know who he is. Mom, yes.

I apologize for the mistake. I can't remember who the people are, but there have been several threads about people.

Alas the point is not who the threads are about. The fact of your constantly creating these threads about yourself and your struggle with people on a day-to-day basis is.

It seems as though you are either seeking advice or validation for your actions from people who you view as intelligent. While I have no problem with people doing this, your constant sharing with the forum information and asking for their input about how they sleep, eat, walk, stand, sit, talk, dress etc. seem to indicate that you have serious insecurities.

I don't believe I've seriously said that he is incorrect because I think he is an xSFx. I have made a few comments like that, yes, but they shouldn't have been considered as serious ones, you shouldn't take everything people say directly.

A conveniently easy way of trying to understate the consistency with which you resort to Ad Hominem attacks during debate. If not for the context with which you made these statements in, it would be believable.

I am unsurprised that you would respond with this rather than admit to fault.

Ironically though, if your response was more along the lines of, 'Yes that was admittedly childish', it would have been more convincing than to flake on your own previous convictions by saying that you were only joking.

If indeed true (that you were joking), I wonder how many people who read that statement will ever take you seriously now that they know that at any point in time during a debate you might just arbitrarily decide to start trolling them.

I know that I personally wouldn't bother debating with anyone who I thought would do that.

Wouldn't you ask for why someone thinks you're "insert adjective here?" I think you would, and most of the people around here would as well.

For what purpose? I don't feel the need to refute criticisms of my intelligence or character.

I don't see how asking questions is emotionally-driven, especially when someone "accuses" you of something.

If your intention is to refute their accusations to establish that their criticism is incorrect, then it is.

So wait, are you saying that I shouldn't create threads about specific situations? That's interesting.

No, that's not what I said.

But the fact that you do constantly create threads and the topics of those threads give the impression that you highly value the attention and external recognition you receive.

It's a debate, we are supposed to say our opinions... That's the whole point of the debate - to say what we think, our ideas and opinions!

In a debate, you are supposed to give your opinions on the topic in a formal manner in relation to the topic. Opinions on the topic are valid and appreciated.

Opinions based on how you personally view the other person is not a part of debating. That is quarrelling.

*You are of course free to hold and express those opinions, but if you are going to do so, understand that you are not contributing to the debate. You are turning it into a quarrel.

However if the topic of debate is an actual person, opinions of them are valid within the realm of the debate and are not necessarily quarrelling. However this has not been the case when you have done it.

 

[intpz]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

Yes you are correct in saying that what you do is similar (it isn't quite the same) to what I am currently doing. Context however, is important. As said, I will cover this later in the post*.

Should I just randomly mention them in some thread? "Oh, hey dude, some of your posts are XXX."

constant[/B] sharing with the forum information and asking for their input about how they sleep, eat, walk, stand, sit, talk, dress etc. seem to indicate that you have serious insecurities.

Everyone has day-to-day issues with people, unless they don't meet anyone.

Or I'm simply interested in what other people do. It seems to me, that once again, you are trying to see something that isn't there. You're too suspicious towards people you don't approve actions of.

A conveniently easy way of trying to understate the consistency with which you resort to Ad Hominem attacks during debate. If not for the context with which you made these statements in, it would be believable.

I am unsurprised that you would respond with this rather than admit to fault.

Ironically though, if your response was more along the lines of, 'Yes that was admittedly childish', it would have been more convincing than to flake on your own previous convictions by saying that you were only joking.

If indeed true (that you were joking), I wonder how many people who read that statement will ever take you seriously now that they know that at any point in time during a debate you might just arbitrarily decide to start trolling them.

I know that I personally wouldn't bother debating with anyone who I thought would do that.

I didn't say I was always joking. Again - seeing what's not there...

For what purpose? I don't feel the need to refute criticisms of my intelligence or character.

Aren't you curious what caused to them to think that way?

If your intention is to refute their accusations to establish that their criticism is incorrect, then it is.

Read above: curiosity. Depression can cause one to be not curious.

No, that's not what I said.

But the fact that you do constantly create threads and the topics of those threads give the impression that you highly value the attention and external recognition you receive.

...or (as mentioned above), I'm curious about what others do.

Either you have no curiosity, or you're trying to find things you think aren't right with me.

In a debate, you are supposed to give your opinions on the topic in a formal manner in relation to the topic. Opinions on the topic are valid and appreciated.

Opinions based on how you personally view the other person is not a part of debating. That is quarrelling.

*You are of course free to hold and express those opinions, but if you are going to do so, understand that you are not contributing to the debate. You are turning it into a quarrel.

However if the topic of debate is an actual person, opinions of them are valid within the realm of the debate and are not necessarily quarrelling. However this has not been the case when you have done it.

Part of how I personally view the means of the topic is a part of the debate, so instead of creating a new thread, or posting in a random topic where the person hasn't even posted before, why can't I say something about his/her consistent behavior?

 

[Solitaire U.]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

You seem(blah blah blah)...

^ Please hurry up and evolve, for the Gates of Enlightenment will soon slam shut, leaving people like yourself to trade useless banter with the Jehovah's Witnesses, whilst we and our canine companions move forward hand in paw into the Great White Light of Higher Evolution.

 

[redbaron]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

Should I just randomly mention them in some thread? "Oh, hey dude, some of your posts are XXX."

I have no problem with you mentioning your opinions of a persons character. I have a problem when you try to use it as a form of evidence to support your claim in a debate.

Furthermore, whether or not you feel that you should be able to mention your personal opinions of someone, is entirely unrelated to the point that it is fallacious to use those opinions to try to further your cause in a debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Everyone has day-to-day issues with people, unless they don't meet anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I work with roughly 20 people every day. I visit family and socialize regularly.

I can't recall any day-to-day issues with any of them. There are issues, but they are far from a daily or even regular occurrence.

Or I'm simply interested in what other people do. It seems to me, that once again, you are trying to see something that isn't there. You're too suspicious towards people you don't approve actions of.

Bolded part is irrelevant.

You are attempting to negate the claim of your emotional immaturity, by claiming that I am too suspicious towards people whose actions I don't approve of. Even if you were able to demonstrate it, you wouldn't be any closer to disproving the claim.

I didn't say I was always joking. Again - seeing what's not there...

I didn't say you're always joking either. However you admitted to the possibility that you don't take debate seriously, and that you have in the past, made fallacious arguments that were not intended as serious.

I have seen you defend a position with the claim that the other person is irrational (Ad Hominem) and turned the debate into a quarrel about how them sounding like an 'xsfx' is evidence of their irrationality (Red Herring as well as Correlation Fallacy).

You launched a personal attack on the forum member, turning what had initially been a productive debate into a petty quarrel. Whether serious or not, that was the outcome.

If at any point you'd like to change your mind and simply admit that you have on occasion (knowingly or unknowingly) let your emotions get the better of you, feel free to do so. Trying to rationalize your reasons for making snide and fallacious attacks on people isn't the best way to demonstrate your rationality or emotional stability.

Aren't you curious what caused to them to think that way?

No. Why would I be? It only matters if the criticism is correct or not. Even then the things I'm criticised for I'm usually already well aware of.

Very rarely if ever (I can't remember the last time) have I received criticism for something that I wasn't already aware of myself. If you understand yourself and others on an emotional level, criticism should not come as a surprise, only a reminder.

So no. I see no reason to even be curious about why you'd receive criticism unless you're inattentive to the emotional and mental state of yourself and others.

If criticism comes as a genuine surprise to you (it shouldn't), perhaps you should pay more attention to what you say and do, and understand how it could be perceived by other people.

This is not to say you should change your behaviour just because others don't like it, but you shouldn't exactly be surprised that you're being called emotionally immature given the way you present yourself on the forum.

I know I won't be surprised if I'm considered the biggest douche-bag on the forum for taking this discussion this far, and that maybe I'm the one with the insecurity. If that's the conclusion others are going to come to, I won't be making any effort to change their minds. I simply don't care.

Read above: curiosity. Depression can cause one to be not curious.

The potential effects of depression on curiosity is irrelevant to your emotional immaturity.

Either you have no curiosity, or you're trying to find things you think aren't right with me.

Neither of these is correct. You've created a false dichotomy again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Part of how I personally view the means of the topic is a part of the debate, so instead of creating a new thread, or posting in a random topic where the person hasn't even posted before, why can't I say something about his/her consistent behavior?

You can say anything you want about how you perceive someone's consistent behaviour.

I am simply informing you that to then try and use it as a form of evidence against someone in a debate that was initially unrelated to their behaviour is a fallacy within the context of the debate.

 

[redbaron]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

I like my cat more than a lot of people, if only because people don't have fur and aren't as enjoyable to pat.

^ Please hurry up and evolve, for the Gates of Enlightenment will soon slam shut, leaving people like yourself to trade useless banter with the Jehovah's Witnesses, whilst we and our canine companions move forward hand in paw into the Great White Light of Higher Evolution.

I suggest you avoid this thread, it's (probably) going to get even worse for you.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

Bring it, Barren.

 

[intpz]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

I have no problem with you mentioning your opinions of a persons character. I have a problem when you try to use it as a form of evidence to support your claim in a debate.

Furthermore, whether or not you feel that you should be able to mention your personal opinions of someone, is entirely unrelated to the point that it is fallacious to use those opinions to try to further your cause in a debate.

When I'm doing that, the point of the comparison is not to say that they are acting like someone else and therefore are irrational, it's to illustrate the point that they are acting irrational. Have you ever heard of metaphors?

I work with roughly 20 people every day. I visit family and socialize regularly.

I can't recall any day-to-day issues with any of them. There are issues, but they are far from a daily or even regular occurrence.

Perhaps you don't spend enough time with some of them, or perhaps the rest aren't that different from INTPs. The person who I mention most often, my mom, I spend a lot of time every day with. The other people weren't mentioned too often, therefore I'm not commenting on that.

Bolded part is irrelevant.

You are attempting to negate the claim of your emotional immaturity, by claiming that I am too suspicious towards people whose actions I don't approve of. Even if you were able to demonstrate it, you wouldn't be any closer to disproving the claim.

In that case, most of your posts directed to me are irrelevant in this thread.

I didn't say you're always joking either. However you admitted to the possibility that you don't take debate seriously, and that you have in the past, made fallacious arguments that were not intended as serious.

I have seen you defend a position with the claim that the other person is irrational (Ad Hominem) and turned the debate into a quarrel about how them sounding like an 'xsfx' is evidence of their irrationality (Red Herring as well as Correlation Fallacy).

You launched a personal attack on the forum member, turning what had initially been a productive debate into a petty quarrel. Whether serious or not, that was the outcome.

If at any point you'd like to change your mind and simply admit that you have on occasion (knowingly or unknowingly) let your emotions get the better of you, feel free to do so. Trying to rationalize your reasons for making snide and fallacious attacks on people isn't the best way to demonstrate your rationality or emotional stability.

Read above.

Read above.

Read above.

If at any point you'd like to admit that you killed 13 people and raped 6 women, feel free to do so.

No. Why would I be? It only matters if the criticism is correct or not. Even then the things I'm criticised for I'm usually already well aware of.

Very rarely if ever (I can't remember the last time) have I received criticism for something that I wasn't already aware of myself. If you understand yourself and others on an emotional level, criticism should not come as a surprise, only a reminder.

So no. I see no reason to even be curious about why you'd receive criticism unless you're inattentive to the emotional and mental state of yourself and others.

If criticism comes as a genuine surprise to you (it shouldn't), perhaps you should pay more attention to what you say and do, and understand how it could be perceived by other people.

This is not to say you should change your behaviour just because others don't like it, but you shouldn't exactly be surprised that you're being called emotionally immature given the way you present yourself on the forum.

I know I won't be surprised if I'm considered the biggest douche-bag on the forum for taking this discussion this far, and that maybe I'm the one with the insecurity. If that's the conclusion others are going to come to, I won't be making any effort to change their minds. I simply don't care.

I agree. A christian criticizing you for believe in evolution instead of god should only remind you how stupid you are for believe in evolution instead of god, because you are aware of yourself and him on an emotional level.

I see an implication that I'm trying to change someone's (your's?) mind, and yet I've explicitly mentioned that I am curious on what you have to say. You shouldn't ignore points made by others in a debate, you know.

The potential effects of depression on curiosity is irrelevant to your emotional immaturity.

However it's relevant to your conclusions, which is why I'm adding your personality to the discussion. And once again, I'm not trying to disprove anything.

Neither of these is correct. You've created a false dichotomy again.

Which means the latter is correct: can you see beyond your point of view? There are more curious people than you. Actually I've had a classmate who wasn't curious in anything, never asked any questions, to further any arguments or explanations, conclusions. The only thing he did was looking for "the right one" and pretending to be an idiot when something's said to him (a form of humor).

You can say anything you want about how you perceive someone's consistent behaviour.

I am simply informing you that to then try and use it as a form of evidence against someone in a debate that was initially unrelated to their behaviour is a fallacy within the context of the debate.

Once again: read above.

P.S. You've inspired me to create a new thread.

 

[redbaron]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

When I'm doing that, the point of the comparison is not to say that they are acting like someone else and therefore are irrational, it's to illustrate the point that they are acting irrational. Have you ever heard of metaphors?

Bolded part.

Whether you believe they're acting irrational or not is irrelevant to the topic of debate. It is Ad Hominem.

It is also a fallacy to assume that their conclusions are wrong because (you believe) the argument is based on emotion, or the argument is initially flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

As I said, you are free to state any opinions of their personality, I'm just pointing out that they aren't valid in the realm of debate and don't add any weight to your arguments.

Perhaps you don't spend enough time with some of them, or perhaps the rest aren't that different from INTPs. The person who I mention most often, my mom, I spend a lot of time every day with. The other people weren't mentioned too often, therefore I'm not commenting on that.

I spend 8 hours or more with some of them. I also lived with a few of my cousins for a year, some of whom are the 'dreaded' SF type. Yet never have I had day-to-day issues with any of them. We held radically different views about many topics, yet we were able to express our thoughts amicably.

I am truly sorry that your emotional immaturity prevents you from finding a solution to your perceived predicament.

In that case, most of your posts directed to me are irrelevant in this thread.

Nice try, but no.

This topic of debate is directly related to your personality, specifically your emotional immaturity. Therefore any arguments made that highlight your emotional immaturity are not fallacy, and are instead pertinent to the debate.

If I was to attack a factor about you that was unrelated to your emotional maturity, for example how you're poor, then that would be considered Ad Hominem and irrelevant. However I have not done so.

If at any point you'd like to admit that you killed 13 people and raped 6 women, feel free to do so.

Even If I did do that, it wouldn't discredit the argument that you're emotionally immature?

Another example of Ad Hominem, could also be construed as poisoning the well in a certain context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

P.S. It was 14 that I killed.

I agree. A christian criticizing you for believe in evolution instead of god should only remind you how stupid you are for believe in evolution instead of god, because you are aware of yourself and him on an emotional level.

You have posted entirely outside of context and made an irrelevant argument that doesn't support your claim. You've created a Straw Man that is unrelated to the point I made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I see an implication that I'm trying to change someone's (your's?) mind[/B], and yet I've explicitly mentioned that I am curious on what you have to say. You shouldn't ignore points made by others in a debate, you know.

No, there is no implication of that. I mean what I have specifically said:

That you are emotionally immature, as highlighted by your consistent use of (among other often fallacious arguments) Ad Hominem attacks, Straw Man arguments, attention-seeking behaviour and the apparent difficulty you often express in simply dealing with people on a day-to-day basis.

By asserting an implication that you see and refuting the implication you created - as opposed to refuting my initial claim, you've created another Straw Man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

However it's relevant to your conclusions, which is why I'm adding your personality to the discussion. And once again, I'm not trying to disprove anything.

No. This is fallacy.

It holds no bearing on the debate of your emotional immaturity. Even if you were to veritably demonstrate that I am depressed, you still would not have shown that you are not emotionally immature. What you are doing is (once again) this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Which means the latter is correct: can you see beyond your point of view? There are more curious people than you. Actually I've had a classmate who wasn't curious in anything, never asked any questions, to further any arguments or explanations, conclusions. The only thing he did was looking for "the right one" and pretending to be an idiot when something's said to him (a form of humor).

No. As already said, you have created a false dichotomy. There are more possible outcomes than just the two that you gave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

P.S. You've inspired me to create a new thread.

I'm not surprised. You seem to create a thread about every other emotional experience you have, why not this one.

 

[intpz]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

Bolded part.

Whether you believe they're acting irrational or not is irrelevant to the topic of debate. It is Ad Hominem.

It is also a fallacy to assume that their conclusions are wrong because (you believe) the argument is based on emotion, or the argument is initially flawed.

As I said, you are free to state any opinions of their personality, I'm just pointing out that they aren't valid in the realm of debate and don't add any weight to your arguments.

It is relevant, otherwise I wouldn't be debating in the first place, unless it would be a different logical approach, but then I would be asking few questions to see why they took that choice instead of the one I did. Not debating.

Why is it a fallacy to think that their argument is irrational if it's the truth?

No weight - that's okay with me. I don't believe I've ever said that they do add weight to the argument.

I spend 8 hours or more with some of them. I also lived with a few of my cousins for a year, some of whom are the 'dreaded' SF type. Yet never have I had day-to-day issues with any of them. We held radically different views about many topics, yet we were able to express our thoughts amicably.

I am truly sorry that your emotional immaturity prevents you from finding a solution to your perceived predicament.

Unfortunately you are sorry in vein then. I don't think I'm emotionally immature because people want to enforce their opinions on me, make me do something, etc.. If it was a situation where (say my mom) would just discuss things, I'm okay with that, I would likely even skip saying my opinion. It's sometimes the case, when she's trying to manipulate me, then she doesn't "tell" me something, nor asks something. Unfortunately more often that's not the case.

Nice try, but no.

This topic of debate is directly related to your personality, specifically your emotional immaturity. Therefore any arguments made that highlight your emotional immaturity are not fallacy, and are instead pertinent to the debate.

If I was to attack a factor about you that was unrelated to your emotional maturity, for example how you're poor, then that would be considered Ad Hominem and irrelevant. However I have not done so.

So what you're saying is that my actions are irrelevant, and so is your observations. Interesting, because I thought that actions depend on what you're thinking.

Even If I did do that, it wouldn't discredit the argument that you're emotionally immature?

Another example of Ad Hominem, could also be construed as poisoning the well in a certain context.

P.S. It was 14 that I killed.

The point of that was to say that one shouldn't admit to what he hasn't done. Misinterpreting or trying to find things to cling on, I wonder.

You have posted entirely outside of context and made an irrelevant argument that doesn't support your claim. You've created a Straw Man that is unrelated to the point I made.

Once again - have you ever heard of metaphors? Seems like you've already skipped one in this post of yours, after I've mentioned that in my previous post. This was the second one.

No, there is no implication of that. I mean what I have specifically said:

That you are emotionally immature, as highlighted by your consistent use of (among other often fallacious arguments) Ad Hominem attacks, Straw Man arguments, attention-seeking behaviour and the apparent difficulty you often express in simply dealing with people on a day-to-day basis.

By asserting an implication that you see and refuting the implication you created - as opposed to refuting my initial claim, you've created another Straw Man.

And once again you ignore the fact that I've repeatedly stated that I'm a curious guy, unlike you apparently.

No. This is fallacy.

It holds no bearing on the debate of your emotional immaturity. Even if you were to veritably demonstrate that I am depressed, you still would not have shown that you are not emotionally immature. What you are doing is (once again) this:

Or I'm simply trying to explain why you're so focused on the "emotional immaturity" and are ignoring parts of my posts.

No. As already said, you have created a false dichotomy. There are more possible outcomes than just the two that you gave.

I'm not comparing him to you. Once again, you didn't understand what I meant. And once again you're ignoring the fact about curiosity.

I'm not surprised. You seem to create a thread about every other emotional experience you have, why not this one.

And again - ignoring what I've said. I wonder if there's something in Latin about the debates and ignorance of the other side's arguments on Wiki. Too bad I have no motivation to look for it.

 

[redbaron]

You are attempting to rationalize your usage of illogical arguments (fallacy), and it seems you don't understand how or why this is a pointless endeavour.

You are missing the context and the point of the debate (Ignoratio Elenchi), and using Ad Hominem, Straw Man and False Dichotomy in an attempt to support your claims.

The exact behaviour that you're demonstrating is the behaviour that leads me to the conclusion that you are emotionally immature - inability to debate without resorting to fallacy.

 

[redbaron]

HELLO MODERATORS

 

[Solitaire U.]

Hey, I want out. Take me back to the dog thing.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Re: I Love My Dog More Than I Love Anyone

Spoiler

You seem to have a lack of maturity in dealing with any opinion that contradicts yours. I have specifically observed you draw conclusions about someone's personality based on something as innocuous as earrings. You often create threads about your day-to-day interactions, and how you struggle to understand the motivations behind your mother, uncle, teachers and colleagues.

You seem to have a genuinely pathetic desire to be, 'right' and to, 'win' in situations of simple discussion and sharing of ideas.

I've observed you struggle to do so on numerous occasions, which resulted in you resorting to the assertion that the other person's argument sounds like something an 'insert xSFx MBTI personality type here' would say - and is therefore incorrect on that basis.

I saw your response to my initial comment of your emotional immaturity coming from a mile away. I expected you to demand clarification on my behalf, so that you could then go on to prove how I'm totally wrong and that you are an emotionally stable and mature individual.

I've observed the same emotionally-driven retaliation numerous times. You respond to any sort of criticism by first demanding that the other person makes clear every specific reason they have for making that criticism and then - going to great lengths to refute them all.

You consistently allude to the fact of your being poor and that your intelligence goes to waste because of external factors. You have specifically created threads about how you are often frustrated by the perceived closed-mindedness of your family or colleagues.

Your seeming inability to keep your personal opinions of someone's character out of any debate leads me to believe that it bothers you greatly to be contradicted. You think of yourself as highly intelligent and anything that could be construed as undermining it (your intelligence) often results in a vehement response.

What you described was me at age 15-17, before I got my first job.

Spoiler

Even then, maturation in this respect was a slow process. In 2008 (age 20) I first got involved in a political forum initially as a troll (a bad one), until I attempted debate and got my ass handed to me for months. Obviously the circumstances are different, i.e. forums, users, etc., but the attitude I held while I was there is exactly what you described. I was nothing like I am now until ~2009, after being introduced to field research.

There is hope of a positive outcome, and ironically it's usually threads like this that produce it (albeit over time).

 

[Absurdity]

This thread needs more accusations of Oedipal complexes.

 

[MissQuote]

Oh. my.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

This is a perfect example of YDYB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis#Why_Don.27t_You.2FYes_But

 

[MissQuote]

Here are my questions:

Even if everyone joined in and we all exchanged observations and tossed out alternatives and debated with pure and perfect reason and we came to a Grand Truth (hardeehar) conclusion together that intpz is in fact Emotionally Immature would that make this topic any more mature?

Would that have made this this best and most logical way to go about telling him about the New Grand Truth we all realised?

Or would it simply have been a way to get him to prove us right in our Grand Truth findings, regardless of the fact that we would knowingly be picking on someone with emotional immaturity and therefore playing a game of self satisfaction with the lovely confirmation bias we sought and were provided?

 

[DeadonDreaming]

 

[Melkor]

Oh just have kinky sex already!

I'm waaaaiting.

 

[DeadonDreaming]

Oh just have kinky sex already!

I'm waaaaiting.

 

[intpz]

You are attempting to rationalize your usage of illogical arguments (fallacy), and it seems you don't understand how or why this is a pointless endeavour.

You are missing the context and the point of the debate (Ignoratio Elenchi), and using Ad Hominem, Straw Man and False Dichotomy in an attempt to support your claims.

The exact behaviour that you're demonstrating is the behaviour that leads me to the conclusion that you are emotionally immature - inability to debate without resorting to fallacy.

Seems to me that that's what you're doing, except the part about missing the point, as you've started the argument. However, we should add ignoring my post contents to the list; change the font size to 32, font color to burning red, bold it, underline it and click on italic.

 

[redbaron]

However, we should add ignoring my post contents to the list

I haven't ignored anything you've said, it's just that so many of your arguments were either irrelevant to the topic or fallacious. There is no point in refuting arguments of that nature, beyond pointing out that they are in fact fallacious or irrelevant.

I'm sorry that your arguments didn't get the response you thought they deserved.

 

[intpz]

So the "curiosity" is irrelevant as well? Interesting, because I thought it is the most relevant part.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Here are my questions:

Even if everyone joined in and we all exchanged observations and tossed out alternatives and debated with pure and perfect reason and we came to a Grand Truth (hardeehar) conclusion together that intpz is in fact Emotionally Immature would that make this topic any more mature?

Maturity is WAY overrated.

 

[MissQuote]

Point.

 

[redbaron]

So the "curiosity" is irrelevant as well? Interesting, because I thought it is the most relevant part.

It was indeed relevant - I responded to it. However it was not very convincing.

Curiosity isn't the reason you make Ad Hominem attacks to support your stance in a debate. Or why you resort to fallacy when refuting arguments. Curiosity would normally deter someone from doing this, because it prevents the debate from progressing and potentially reaching an outcome where the curiosity is satisfied.

Also, the thing you are so often curious about seems to be criticism. You seem absolutely hell bent on analysing why people might criticise anything about you, and attempt to refute nearly every single argument someone makes that could potentially be construed as a negative judgement of you. That's fine, but if this is driven simply by curiosity, why do you seem to only follow this process when you receive negative criticism? Why not positive as well?

 

[Proletar]

"This forum isn't the way I want it to be. Let's change it by flaming people that submit different kinds of threads instead of stearing it in a direction that I want by posting content that I find interesting."

redbaron: This is a board. If someone has something that they think is worth submitting, they do. The forum isn't limited to X posts a day. If you are not interested, then move on. If no one is, those topics sink down to page 2.

 

[Etheri]

Oh just have kinky sex already!

I'm waaaaiting.

^Thread.

Maturity is WAY overrated.

Simply because it's true. Also, is maturity something that is achieved? I prefer to think of it as a continuous, never ending process. You don't just wake up and suddenly stop doing retarded stuff. Actually, we never stop doing retarded stuff, we only do it less and less frequently.

About childen : they get angry, sad or annoyed so very easily. Emotionally immature, but hey, they're children. However, unless you truly do them wrong, they've forgotten howmuch 'they hate you' and love you again 30 minutes later. They may be quick to go at you for any reason, fair or not, but they're just as quick to forgive and forget.

 

[intpz]

It was indeed relevant - I responded to it. However it was not very convincing.

Curiosity isn't the reason you make Ad Hominem attacks to support your stance in a debate. Or why you resort to fallacy when refuting arguments. Curiosity would normally deter someone from doing this, because it prevents the debate from progressing and potentially reaching an outcome where the curiosity is satisfied.

Also, the thing you are so often curious about seems to be criticism. You seem absolutely hell bent on analysing why people might criticise anything about you, and attempt to refute nearly every single argument someone makes that could potentially be construed as a negative judgement of you. That's fine, but if this is driven simply by curiosity, why do you seem to only follow this process when you receive negative criticism? Why not positive as well?

The more I read your posts, the more I see that this debate is pointless, as you ignore what I say simply because you don't think it is that way. Examples: taking everything very literally, even though I give a reason for it, explaining curiosity with something that falls under the first part of this sentence.

Odd, I thought we were talking about me derailing other threads, which isn't something related to what you just said.

Maturity is WAY overrated.

Interesting. @redbaron could you define maturity for me, what is "emotionally mature?", and I mean the whole definition, not only you think is related to my behavior.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Interesting. @redbaron could you define maturity for me, what is "emotionally mature?", and I mean the whole definition, not only you think is related to my behavior.

This is a perfect example of YDYB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis#Why_Don.27t_You.2FYes_But

May this thread forever stand as a reminder that one should be aware of the game one is involved in ^. <-- @Da Blob Thanks for originally posting the TA link.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ7z57qrZU8

 

[intpz]

@thehabitatdoctor are you saying that in highly opinionated discussions people shouldn't define their opinions on their definitions of phrases/words?

By the way, I believe I've asked him this earlier, though not sure. I feel like I was curious for a long time about this though.

 

[TriflinThomas]

I hope you guys realize you're fighting on the internet. Meow

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

*practices what he preached in post #34*

 

[intpz]

*practices what he preached in post #34*

I'm okay with that then. Preach in a dictionary:
"Deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church"
"Publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief)"
"Earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action)"
"Give moral advice to someone in an annoying or pompously self-righteous way"

 

[DeadonDreaming]

Maturity is WAY overrated.

People who cry about maturity are the same people who put everyone else to sleep. Most of the time you see someone post something like that, realize you're reading the post of someone who has something to prove.

Not saying this thread is like that, since I refuse to read an argument between two people I'm not involved with (I consider getting involved highly immature, oh look what I did there!). There are a couple of Mr. Neatnik's on this board who need to chill out.

 

[Proletar]

Yeah.

Now that I think of it, the last time someone called me immature, it was a 14 year old girl.

 

[Moocow]

This is a perfect example of YDYB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis#Why_Don.27t_You.2FYes_But

Ooh! While I'm not keeping up with the particulars at hand, that "game" is frequent enough on this board that it deserves its own thread. It even goes to extreme ends where the OP may insult or condescend those who make suggestions.

I haven't read intpz's posts and I've only skimmed redbaron's but if intpz is doing what he is accused of, he's hardly the first one here to do it.
It's a defensive strategy... someone puts themselves out there too readily and can't take the criticism, so instead of thinking about the response they got they interrogate the person so as to completely obfuscate the original criticism, or give the appearance of having discredited it. Even worse, masking insecurity as some kind of "curiosity" to justify prying obsessively into the critic's semantics or worse, motivations, as if there's really anything else people are going to give a fuck about other than the flawed remarks the defender originally made.

THEN the defender becomes so completely intolerable and circular in this behavior that the critic is forced to point out how intolerable they are being, THEN the defender can accuse the critic of personal attacks and throw their hands up in the air and act like a victim.

It's all about plausible deniability. Waste of time... no one's going to feel better as a result of any of it. I wish when such a person went to the lengths to ask a billion pointless questions about the critic, the critic would just stop and say "I don't need to fucking answer this, I have a life. Figure it out if you're so smart."

 

[Da Blob]

I had read "Games People Play" about a half century ago. There has bee little to dissuade me from believing that humans will go to elaborate lengths to maintain their internal status quo, resisting change by playing games they can't lose for only they know the rules.

I have an old thread somewhere, but in the meantime until I can look it up there is this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanisms

Level 2 - Immature
These mechanisms are often present in adults. These mechanisms lessen distress and anxiety provoked by threatening people or by uncomfortable reality. Excessive use of such defenses is seen as socially undesirable in that they are immature, difficult to deal with and seriously out of touch with reality. These are the so-called "immature" defences and overuse almost always leads to serious problems in a person's ability to cope effectively. These defences are often seen in major depression and personality disorders.
They include:
Acting out: Direct expression of an unconscious wish or impulse in action, without conscious awareness of the emotion that drives that expressive behaviour.
Fantasy: Tendency to retreat into fantasy in order to resolve inner and outer conflicts.
Idealization: Unconsciously choosing to perceive another individual as having more positive qualities than he or she may actually have.[17]
Passive aggression: Aggression towards others expressed indirectly or passively such as using procrastination.
Projection: Projection is a primitive form of paranoia. Projection also reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the undesirable impulses or desires without becoming consciously aware of them; attributing one's own unacknowledged unacceptable/unwanted thoughts and emotions to another; includes severe prejudice, severe jealousy, hypervigilance to external danger, and "injustice collecting". It is shifting one's unacceptable thoughts, feelings and impulses within oneself onto someone else, such that those same thoughts, feelings, beliefs and motivations are perceived as being possessed by the other.
Projective identification: The object of projection invokes in that person precisely the thoughts, feelings or behaviours projected.
Somatization: The transformation of negative feelings towards others into negative feelings toward self, pain, illness, and anxiety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

BTW - everyone is immature, especially those of us who are Self-actualized. We relish in that fact.

EDIT: http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=1807

 

[Words]

I think you know this redbaron but I share the same annoyance for intpz but not necessarily because he is "emotionally immature", but because he is a dummy. (intpz, you know that I think you're stupid, right? I've said it many times.) There is no reasoning with dummies, so I encourage just ignoring the guy.

If you still want to continue this, then I remember intpz talking about his "horrible SF-parents" and how his life is supposed ruined by said "evil" SFs, it might be relevant.

 

[redbaron]

I think you know this redbaron but I share the same annoyance for intpz but not necessarily because he is "emotionally immature", but because he is a dummy. (intpz, you know that I think you're stupid, right? I've said it many times.) There is no reasoning with dummies, so I encourage just ignoring the guy.

If you still want to continue this, then I remember intpz talking about his "horrible SF-parents" and how his life is supposed ruined by said "evil" SFs, it might be relevant.

I don't believe he's a dummy. He seems perfectly capable of making outside observations of situations or concepts that are logical and informed, so long as they are unrelated to him personally.

It seems to only be when he becomes involved in a debate personally, or a question of his character arises that he starts to resort to fallacy and begin to make unfounded and idiotic assumptions.

I consider him intelligent, simply that he's extremely touchy about even the smallest thing that might be construed as a disagreement, or criticism to his personality or his opinions.

THEN the defender becomes so completely intolerable and circular in this behavior that the critic is forced to point out how intolerable they are being, THEN the defender can accuse the critic of personal attacks and throw their hands up in the air and act like a victim.

It's all about plausible deniability. Waste of time... no one's going to feel better as a result of any of it. I wish when such a person went to the lengths to ask a billion pointless questions about the critic, the critic would just stop and say "I don't need to fucking answer this, I have a life. Figure it out if you're so smart."

Almost exactly what's happened in the thread.

I was more polite than the bold part, but that wouldn't be an inaccurate description of what I've said.

 

[redbaron]

You ignore what I say simply because you don't think it is that way.

No.

I ignore what you say when it is either based on, or is inherently fallacy. This isn't a matter of me disagreeing, it actually IS fallacy and warrants no response.

Any valid arguments you've made I've responded to. Simply because an argument is valid within the context of the debate, doesn't mean that it cannot be rebutted or shown that although valid, further explanation is still required.

 

[intpz]

I ignore what you say when it is either based on, or is inherently fallacy. This isn't a matter of me disagreeing, it actually IS fallacy and warrants no response.

Ooh! While I'm not keeping up with the particulars at hand, that "game" is frequent enough on this board that it deserves its own thread. It even goes to extreme ends where the OP may insult or condescend those who make suggestions.

I haven't read intpz's posts and I've only skimmed redbaron's but if intpz is doing what he is accused of, he's hardly the first one here to do it.
It's a defensive strategy... someone puts themselves out there too readily and can't take the criticism, so instead of thinking about the response they got they interrogate the person so as to completely obfuscate the original criticism, or give the appearance of having discredited it. Even worse, masking insecurity as some kind of "curiosity" to justify prying obsessively into the critic's semantics or worse, motivations, as if there's really anything else people are going to give a fuck about other than the flawed remarks the defender originally made.

THEN the defender becomes so completely intolerable and circular in this behavior that the critic is forced to point out how intolerable they are being, THEN the defender can accuse the critic of personal attacks and throw their hands up in the air and act like a victim.

It's all about plausible deniability. Waste of time... no one's going to feel better as a result of any of it. I wish when such a person went to the lengths to ask a billion pointless questions about the critic, the critic would just stop and say "I don't need to fucking answer this, I have a life. Figure it out if you're so smart."

Well, if taking this as a description of what I'm doing: if you are said to be doing something for X reasons, while in reality you are doing it for Y reasons, how are you going to prove otherwise? I'll give an example from arguments I've with my mom sometimes to illustrate the point better:

"You don't if I was playing games all day, in fact, you can't know."
"I know."
"How?"
"Intuitively."
"That's not knowing, that's speculation"
"I know."
"You already said that, and I said that you're speculating."
The we get one of the following: either she continues telling me that I was or wasn't doing something , or if she's in a worse mood, she tells me to "stop terrorizing her."

The point is, only I can know the true reasons for my actions, others can only speculate. Same goes for everyone. Sometimes speculations are correct, sometimes they aren't, and if you simply dismiss when the "target" is telling how it is because you think otherwise because *insert a reason here (annoyed by my posts?)*, well - it's neither definitive, nor logical, nor is true.

And asking his definition of immaturity, for example, isn't asking about the critic, it's asking what how he thinks I am, in other words, it's clarifying his point.

I think you know this redbaron but I share the same annoyance for intpz but not necessarily because he is "emotionally immature", but because he is a dummy. (intpz, you know that I think you're stupid, right? I've said it many times.) There is no reasoning with dummies, so I encourage just ignoring the guy.

If you still want to continue this, then I remember intpz talking about his "horrible SF-parents" and how his life is supposed ruined by said "evil" SFs, it might be relevant.

I know that. I'm infamous.

I've never said that my life was ruined by "horrible SF-parents..." Or ""evil" SFs."

I don't believe he's a dummy. He seems perfectly capable of making outside observations of situations or concepts that are logical and informed, so long as they are unrelated to him personally.

It seems to only be when he becomes involved in a debate personally, or a question of his character arises that he starts to resort to fallacy and begin to make unfounded and idiotic assumptions.

I consider him intelligent, simply that he's extremely touchy about even the smallest thing that might be construed as a disagreement, or criticism to his personality or his opinions.

Eh. Well, commented on that above anyway. I recommend you reading and not ignoring it.

@redbaron So will you tell me how you see the phrase "emotional immaturity" in general (overall)?

 

[Moocow]

I think it is very easy to convince ourselves of any number of reasons for our actions and think the belief alone has some kind of role in whether it is true, but to other people, you might not be the first one behaving in such a way and though everyone can come up with reasons that are different and their own, the actions remain the same.

 

[redbaron]

"You don't if I was playing games all day, in fact, you can't know."
"I know."
"How?"
"Intuitively."
"That's not knowing, that's speculation"
"I know."
"You already said that, and I said that you're speculating."
The we get one of the following: either she continues telling me that I was or wasn't doing something , or if she's in a worse mood, she tells me to "stop terrorizing her."

Were you playing games all day? If not, just say so. Don't be a smart-ass by trying to fault her line of reasoning, just tell her you that you weren't, and prove it by telling her what it was you were doing instead. That conversation is what I would expect from a 10 year old.

If you really were playing games all day and this is your way of avoiding having to admit to it? Then I feel sorry for your mum that she has to live with a piece of shit for a son like you. She probably feels embarrassed that her son acts like that.

Your mum sounds like she genuinely loves and is concerned about you, but you're too worried about having to admit to being a loser who spent all day playing games, hiding behind the fact that she can't 'prove' that you did. What does it even matter? Did you or didn't you?

Who pays to keep you in the place? Her? If so, she should kick your ungrateful ass into the street until you're ready to act like a grown-up.

Do you ever help her around the house? Or let her relax while you take care of housework? Do you make an effort to see to her wants and needs? Do you even care about these things?

Seriously, the conversation you describe is how my nine year old cousin speaks to HIS mother. Except he's only NINE YEARS OLD, so it's understandable.

I hope you realise that the way you speak to your mother isn't intelligent, you're just playing the victim.

I knew you were pathetic, but I had no idea how pathetic.

 

[DeadonDreaming]

I thought intpz was a girl

 

[MissQuote]

I made cookies earlier for the kids.

just now, while reading about redbaron's opinion about @intpz 's treatment of his mom, I said "ohhhh! I need a cookie!"

my INFP 12 year old set down his controller and went and brought me one with a smile.

Then I said "Ohhh! I need another cookie!"

and my ISTP 15 year old brought me another one and asked why I hadn't started the water for the noodles for dinner yet. I told him I was waiting on his dad to come back with the lettuce and bread from the store. and he said.

"Hmmm. Oh."


*sits back and eats cookies and reads thread and thinks about how great her kids are*