Greetings.

Hello, I hopped over here from i.org. It seems awfully fluffy here...

Disappropriated wrote:

Hello, I hopped over here from i.org. It seems awfully fluffy here...

Start a topic-up and see what happens. You never know.

If ı had a topıc to start ı would.

Welcome, Dissappropriated. I know you from I.org. I also see you at Beck's cognitive forum, as
well. I hope you give us a chance. Please introduce yourself and tell us what your interests are.
I'll call it an A-Z cookbook of possible ideas. Some ideas will take and the forum continues to
evolve. First, since you registered at similar minds, you probably know your Myers Briggs
type. Are you primarily a thinker or feeler type?

lightsun wrote:

Welcome, Dissappropriated. I know you from I.org. I also see you at Beck's cognitive forum, as well. I hope you give us a chance.

Hello lightsun, you do indeed. And I am also at Beck's. Since these places are new it should be easier to get into than Simpleminds, or whatever the other place was called.

lightsun wrote:

introduce yourself and tell us what your interests are.

Hello, I'm Disappropriated. I have a strong interest in Linguistics (which I'd like to do at Uni), and I also love Philosophy, I'm on Rand at the moment. I've finished Anthem and The Fountainhead, and I'm now reading Atlas Shrugged. Fascinating read.

I study English Language, Philosophy & Ethics, and Economics at Sixth Form. I'd like to end up as an MP someday, hopefully PM. I'm British.

I have a strong love of all things based around languages, I'm trying to learn Japanese. I have a bad habit of spinning little things about me into dark secrets. I love Dystopian literature.

lightsun wrote:

I'll call it an A-Z cookbook of possible ideas. Some ideas will take and the forum continues to evolve. First, since you registered at similar minds, you probably know your Myers Briggs
type. Are you primarily a thinker or feeler type?

You mean that four letter code? Yes, I'm an IN*J, the * stands for frequent swings. When I'm happy I'm an INFJ, but when I'm depressed I'm an INTJ. When I'm normal I'm usually an INTJ lite which may stray across to the INFJ side.

Thank you very much Disappropriated. I am thankful. I also liked your thoroughness. It is a
hallmark of the INTJ. I was trying to get a hold of you by private message, before you went
offline. I want to start a dialogue. I want to use reason, and I want to communicate.
I will pick up the thread at "a place for the nicer, to be even nicer." I may drop you a pm at
I.org if we don't hear from you in a while. Greetings. It would be interesting to have you here.

Unless you're beïng overly compensating for my completion of one of your questions, then your thankfulness is redundant.

And is that so? I suppose I've neglected my interest in these types.

Don't mind me popping on and off, it's a habit of having too much matter and not enough time.

I hope you realise that you either do use it or don't, a want to use reason is as good as a want to save lives. Or so I'm phrased.

Drop me a PM anywhere you encounter me if you wish.

And it would be interesting to have me here? Is there something you know? Or have you forgotten that wonderfully irregular verb 'will'?

You have a knack for language.

Your style is quite interesting. I invite you to the communications center. I see you already have.
Good. I am still trying to resolve communication difficulties between the styles. I want intentionality
known. That is I communicate X, but Y is perceived, instead. The usual pattern is for the two
sides to get into endless bickering over what was erroneously misinterpreted, instead of getting
grounded in the original message of X. How can person AA communicate in such a manner that
his or her message of X, will in fact be perceived as X by person BB?

lightsun wrote:

Your style is quite interesting. I invite you to the communications center. I see you already have.
Good. I am still trying to resolve communication difficulties between the styles. I want intentionality
known. That is I communicate X, but Y is perceived, instead. The usual pattern is for the two
sides to get into endless bickering over what was erroneously misinterpreted, instead of getting
grounded in the original message of X. How can person AA communicate in such a manner that
his or her message of X, will in fact be perceived as X by person BB?

I am not sure BB will ever perceive exactly X. He/she will perceive X + some δX. For some exchanges, this δX may be negligible, as when a store cashier tells you the total cost of your purchases. For others, it may exceed the "value" of X itself. At best it can be minimized, and its presence recognized and understood.

lightsun wrote:

You have a knack for language.

I know big words and seem to know how to use them. Plus at least online I'm assured that everyöne who doesn't understand what I say has access to facilities that allow them to.

And I'm a little bit of a Radical Grammar Nazi

Disappropriated wrote:

I know big words and seem to know how to use them. Plus at least online I'm assured that everyöne who doesn't understand what I say has access to facilities that allow them to.

You make liberal use of diereses as well. Curious. Is this characteristic of British English?

Romana wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

I know big words and seem to know how to use them. Plus at least online I'm assured that everyöne who doesn't understand what I say has access to facilities that allow them to.

You make liberal use of diereses as well. Curious. Is this characteristic of British English?

No, it's characteristic use of someöne who wants a spelling reform with the return of the diæresis.

Diappropriated, you are 17?

lightsun wrote:

Diappropriated, you are 17?

That's what I'm told. Does that affect anything?

Disappropriated wrote:

Romana wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

I know big words and seem to know how to use them. Plus at least online I'm assured that everyöne who doesn't understand what I say has access to facilities that allow them to.

You make liberal use of diereses as well. Curious. Is this characteristic of British English?

No, it's characteristic use of someöne who wants a spelling reform with the return of the diæresis.

Ah. Build it, and they will come. I do not share your goal, but I do sympathize.

Romana wrote:

Ah. Build it, and they will come. I do not share your goal, but I do sympathize.

It's a side hobby of mine. Although I'm usually constricted by whether or not to use diacritics,or use some letters in a new way. Does get confusing.

No, I am impressed. (This in regards to age).

lightsun wrote:

No, I am impressed.

How and why?

How I am impressed
You have a head on your shoulder. Your communication intrigues me. Because it is different
your communication style. I may be able to learn something.
As an INFP, your communication can feel offensive. I know, I think I know that , that is
obviously not your intention. Getting to know you, I try to communicate with reason. To blame
and castigate accomplishes nothing. There are 3 billion thinkers and 3 billion feelers. I want
to know how to communicate with both sides. With reason for the thinking side.
With respect, decorum, finesse for the feeling side.

Perhaps it's for the best that some do not suffer from the frivolities of banter and some do: that way we don't blur our lines between the types.

Explain?
Wouldn't it be best if we could speak one language? Would it not be advantageous, if we could
get along?

I am reminded of the tower of Babel in the bible when it comes to
communication. I am perturbed. It does not make sense for
people who all speak english can't get along. This goes into
family dynamics as well. One family. One mother and father
can produce both thinkers and feelers. Both conservatives and
liberals. I suppose this chaos has a reason. I went over with
Romana, in the Myers Briggs thread a plausible reason. To
evolve, we had to differentiate and branch out. Each with their
own specialty. We needed 38% SP, for protection and emergency.
38% for organization. This is for simple survival. The NT & NF
specialized further. These different specialties saw the world
differently, and thus communicated differently. My issue is
the ignorance in not understanding each other and respecting
each others differences. I put myself into the equation of
ignorance, not understanding and thus judging. I want to
move past that, to the best of my abilities.

Isn't that dangerously assuming that the ignorance is wrong?

Disappropriated wrote:

Perhaps it's for the best that some do not suffer from the frivolities of banter and some do: that way we don't blur our lines between the types.

That was very blurry to me. You didn't say which types you associate with frivolities, or which you do not. You didn't define banter or its use or motivation. You didn't define lines, and you didn't define types. You also neglected to define best or frivolities in your considered estimation.

A second question. Do you really think "banter" is only something that some types do and not others?

This is partly in answer to the accusation that this form is merely "fluff."
I think other forum members on an intuitive level have made it look more than fluff to me.