(09-05-2022, 02:57 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 02:51 AM)Munificent Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 02:49 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 02:34 AM)Munificent Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 02:31 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote: it evidently was.

you were attempting to discredit my point

nope, i was showing that you constantly make statements that apply to yourself and try to apply it universally

then i responded to your post saying that by showing this, i now understand how you communicate and can understand past interactions through this new lens

well if something applies to most people then the chances are it also applies to me - I am self-aware enough to understand this 

no, it was clearly a dig at me for some dopamine. lmao at this pathetic ad hoc attempt at logical justification

it was obviously a 'dig at you'. that should be blatantly obvious and not even necessary to be said. i was explaining the dig, not trying to justify anything. 

and the problem is that you take something that applies to you and then apply it to everyone else, not the other way around. at least thats what appears to happen

let me get this straight: you perfectly follow the typical human behaviour pattern I delineate and then have the audacity to accuse me of projecting it solely from my own behaviour

(09-05-2022, 02:59 AM)Munificent Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 02:57 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 02:51 AM)Munificent Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 02:49 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 02:34 AM)Munificent Wrote: nope, i was showing that you constantly make statements that apply to yourself and try to apply it universally

then i responded to your post saying that by showing this, i now understand how you communicate and can understand past interactions through this new lens

well if something applies to most people then the chances are it also applies to me - I am self-aware enough to understand this 

no, it was clearly a dig at me for some dopamine. lmao at this pathetic ad hoc attempt at logical justification

it was obviously a 'dig at you'. that should be blatantly obvious and not even necessary to be said. i was explaining the dig, not trying to justify anything. 

and the problem is that you take something that applies to you and then apply it to everyone else, not the other way around. at least thats what appears to happen

let me get this straight: you perfectly follow the typical human behaviour pattern I delineate and then have the audacity to accuse me of projecting it solely from my own behaviour

we havent started any actual discussion on the topic in op yet, so no

(09-05-2022, 03:01 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 02:59 AM)Munificent Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 02:57 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 02:51 AM)Munificent Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 02:49 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote: well if something applies to most people then the chances are it also applies to me - I am self-aware enough to understand this 

no, it was clearly a dig at me for some dopamine. lmao at this pathetic ad hoc attempt at logical justification

it was obviously a 'dig at you'. that should be blatantly obvious and not even necessary to be said. i was explaining the dig, not trying to justify anything. 

and the problem is that you take something that applies to you and then apply it to everyone else, not the other way around. at least thats what appears to happen

let me get this straight: you perfectly follow the typical human behaviour pattern I delineate and then have the audacity to accuse me of projecting it solely from my own behaviour

we havent started any actual discussion on the topic in op yet, so no

nah, it's done. time for you to continue following the model and reflect on your loss

(09-05-2022, 03:08 AM)Munificent Wrote: also, im assuming non-dominance-contest arguments can be had between two individuals of relatively rational predispositions. obviously with someone like yourself it is impossible and you will always drag the conversation into one of these dominance contests (even if you are only dragging it into one within your own mind, leading to embarrassing 'i win the argument, you lose' moments when no arguments were even taking place)

(09-05-2022, 03:19 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 03:08 AM)Munificent Wrote: also, im assuming non-dominance-contest arguments can be had between two individuals of relatively rational predispositions. obviously with someone like yourself it is impossible and you will always drag the conversation into one of these dominance contests (even if you are only dragging it into one within your own mind, leading to embarrassing 'i win the argument, you lose' moments when no arguments were even taking place)

I'm not saying that's impossible - these are generalizations

but you need to understand that this is all happening far beneath the conscious level. so most of the time these people will both be thinking they are being objective and civil but in reality they are trying to get under each other's skin more than reach the truth (short-term) without realising themselves

(09-05-2022, 03:29 AM)Munificent Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 03:19 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 03:08 AM)Munificent Wrote: also, im assuming non-dominance-contest arguments can be had between two individuals of relatively rational predispositions. obviously with someone like yourself it is impossible and you will always drag the conversation into one of these dominance contests (even if you are only dragging it into one within your own mind, leading to embarrassing 'i win the argument, you lose' moments when no arguments were even taking place)

I'm not saying that's impossible - these are generalizations

but you need to understand that this is all happening far beneath the conscious level. so most of the time these people will both be thinking they are being objective and civil but in reality they are trying to get under each other's skin more than reach the truth (short-term) without realising themselves

I’m aware that people do that. But I don’t think that happens every time and that people are completely incapable of rational discussion. 

this is basically a misunderstanding from our two different ways of communicating and understanding the world. namely, me not liking generalised statements presented as reflections of reality

(09-05-2022, 03:31 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 03:29 AM)Munificent Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 03:19 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:

(09-05-2022, 03:08 AM)Munificent Wrote: also, im assuming non-dominance-contest arguments can be had between two individuals of relatively rational predispositions. obviously with someone like yourself it is impossible and you will always drag the conversation into one of these dominance contests (even if you are only dragging it into one within your own mind, leading to embarrassing 'i win the argument, you lose' moments when no arguments were even taking place)

I'm not saying that's impossible - these are generalizations

but you need to understand that this is all happening far beneath the conscious level. so most of the time these people will both be thinking they are being objective and civil but in reality they are trying to get under each other's skin more than reach the truth (short-term) without realising themselves

I’m aware that people do that. But I don’t think that happens every time and that people are completely incapable of rational discussion. 

this is basically a misunderstanding from our two different ways of communicating and understanding the world. namely, me not liking generalised statements presented as reflections of reality

you have to generalise some things or nothing can be said at all