[FairfieldLife] Fanatics personality Traits (Re: Michelle Obama in Fairfiled, IA)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: off wrote: If it were not for Ron Paul, Obama would be my vote. This doesn't even make any sense! Hardly a distinguishing characteristic for Off's posts. And some days, its quite the fashion here on FFL. I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country. - Barak Obama Paul advocates for the elimination of federal involvement and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to drop due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market. Yes. The Ron/Barak difference is vast. Not only is the difference vast between Ron and Barak, the difference between Ron and Off World is equally vast. About 6 months ago I went through a litany of Paul's policies with Off-Kilter to show him how, except for the war in Iraq, Paul was his polar opposite. His response was, as usual, to spew a barrage of name-calling my way and tell me that I am a neo-con. I think some types of fanaticism are emotionally based. Not intellectually derived. Emotionally based and extrovertly processed. Extroverts tend to act first, think later. For such, talking and writing are not a result of having insight from some internal reflection and analysis, but rather talking / expounding are forms of sorting through the idea -- thinking out loud. Thus in this mode, what was said 10 minutes ago, or 1 weeks ago, often has nothing to do with what is being said now. It doesn't need to make sense, its a process not a result. The old was discarded, new thoughts and ideas are being thought out on the public stage. Its a shoot, ask questions later mode. This can be shocking to introverts who first think, then talk. (Or, ask questions, then shoot. No one mode is superior, and we all run up and down the various axes all day. But we have a comfort level a some point on each axes. One who is on the extreme of both i) idea generation (through emotion or analysis) and ii) idea processing (extrovert -- via talking / introvert -- via thinking) can be extreme personalities. When one develops ideas emotionally -- in contrast to intellectually -- and processes them in an extreme extrovert fashion, we have a fanatic personality. Or so I speculate. A very strong emotional/extroversion may be the basis for bewildering fanatic behavior as seen by others less pronounced, less extreme of their comfort zones. Particularly by those on the more extreme ranges of the introversion and thinking scales. Who may have some unorodox positions, but who presents them (finally, after a long incubation) them more finished, more thought out, more internally consistent. Thus the impasse when Extrovert / Emotional Eddie meets Introvert / Analytical Andy at high noon. Eddie shouts out WTF! while Andy's inner circuitry is exploding in overtime thinnking WTF! Not a strong foundation for communications.
[FairfieldLife] Fanatics personality Traits (Re: Michelle Obama in Fairfiled, IA)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some additional thoughts regarding the below and actualization. Curtis, others too perhaps, displays the admirable trait, of trying to reach across the chasm to others operating at far different ranges 9or frequencies) on their scales. Others may thing ok, I see why the impasse, but WTF, I really don't really want to go there right now.) These are two axes of the Briggs-Myers model. Add two more and there are 16 basic personality dimensions. And for some, there comfort level is quite near the center in each. Others are at more extremes on each index -- more extreme personality types. I was thinking that a result (and also a corresponding metric) of self-actualization might be the fluidity to be at home, in any of the 16 cells, an at any extreme of any of the axes. That is, no attachment or being defined by some set of tendencies -- derived probably from past influences. One has transcended such influences and can adapt, seamlessly, to every new moment, with full dexterity. And the flexibility to get inside another's shoes (pants is another, though related issue). Think of the people you have met who seem to flow with those around them. Appreciate their qualities, and not trying to diminish or compare them negatively (to oneself or others). Not so many around. But that state seems more actualized to me than a person stuck in one's comfort cell, and with little empathy for the views and styles of those in the other cells. I think some types of fanaticism are emotionally based. Not intellectually derived. Emotionally based and extrovertly processed. Extroverts tend to act first, think later. For such, talking and writing are not a result of having insight from some internal reflection and analysis, but rather talking / expounding are forms of sorting through the idea -- thinking out loud. Thus in this mode, what was said 10 minutes ago, or 1 weeks ago, often has nothing to do with what is being said now. It doesn't need to make sense, its a process not a result. The old was discarded, new thoughts and ideas are being thought out on the public stage. Its a shoot, ask questions later mode. This can be shocking to introverts who first think, then talk. (Or, ask questions, then shoot. No one mode is superior, and we all run up and down the various axes all day. But we have a comfort level a some point on each axes. One who is on the extreme of both i) idea generation (through emotion or analysis) and ii) idea processing (extrovert -- via talking / introvert -- via thinking) can be extreme personalities. When one develops ideas emotionally -- in contrast to intellectually -- and processes them in an extreme extrovert fashion, we have a fanatic personality. Or so I speculate. A very strong emotional/extroversion may be the basis for bewildering fanatic behavior as seen by others less pronounced, less extreme of their comfort zones. Particularly by those on the more extreme ranges of the introversion and thinking scales. Who may have some unorodox positions, but who presents them (finally, after a long incubation) them more finished, more thought out, more internally consistent. Thus the impasse when Extrovert / Emotional Eddie meets Introvert / Analytical Andy at high noon. Eddie shouts out WTF! while Andy's inner circuitry is exploding in overtime thinnking WTF! Not a strong foundation for communications.
[FairfieldLife] Fanatics personality Traits (Re: Michelle Obama in Fairfiled, IA)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: off wrote: If it were not for Ron Paul, Obama would be my vote. This doesn't even make any sense! Hardly a distinguishing characteristic for Off's posts. And some days, its quite the fashion here on FFL. I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country. - Barak Obama Paul advocates for the elimination of federal involvement and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to drop due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market. Yes. The Ron/Barak difference is vast. Not only is the difference vast between Ron and Barak, the difference between Ron and Off World is equally vast. About 6 months ago I went through a litany of Paul's policies with Off-Kilter to show him how, except for the war in Iraq, Paul was his polar opposite. His response was, as usual, to spew a barrage of name-calling my way and tell me that I am a neo-con. I think some types of fanaticism are emotionally based. Not intellectually derived. Emotionally based and extrovertly processed. Here the Fundies Shemp and NewMorning are buying in to the lies about me to cozy up together with their anti-science buddies, to lie about peole because their arguments are totally disarmed by the facts of science. Typical anti-science fundies. The typical fundie trait of lying about those who uphold science, just like Fox news, Ted Haggard, George Bush and the Neocons. Very interesting and incredibly consistent un-enlightened behavior. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Fanatics personality Traits (Re: Michelle Obama in Fairfiled, IA)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Some additional thoughts regarding the below and actualization. Curtis, others too perhaps, displays the admirable trait, of trying to reach across the chasm to others operating at far different ranges 9or frequencies) on their scales. Others may thing ok, I see why the impasse, but WTF, I really don't really want to go there right now.) These are two axes of the Briggs-Myers model. Add two more and there are 16 basic personality dimensions. And for some, there comfort level is quite near the center in each. Others are at more extremes on each index -- more extreme personality types. I was thinking that a result (and also a corresponding metric) of self-actualization might be the fluidity to be at home, in any of the 16 cells, an at any extreme of any of the axes. That is, no attachment or being defined by some set of tendencies -- derived probably from past influences. One has transcended such influences and can adapt, seamlessly, to every new moment, with full dexterity. And the flexibility to get inside another's shoes (pants is another, though related issue). Typical fundie behavior to use stawman attacks when unable to deny the science. The anti-science freak here is trying to make himself sound superior because he understands but cannot deal with the fact that the future is research published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. This kind of pathetic attempt at psycho-analysis of the person because you have no argument, which NewMorning fanatically spent a LONG time on, really shows that they are completely at a loss to deal with the scientific facts. The fundies are showing their desparation with NewMorning, and his ignornace of science. The future is research published in resepcted peer-reviewed scientific journals and you know it. That is why the fundie gets so angry and trying to defame people who persent them with simple facts of science. This is the typical fundie fanatic anti-science bevior. OffWorld
