Geez! Leave room for dessert...will you !:chew:
Fast Personality Test
- Thread starter Town Heretic
- Start date
Geez! Leave room for dessert...will you !:chew:
Being an innkeeper with a full house whilst turning away weary travelers...doesn't mean you've quit the hospitality business.
There's only so many pecks in a bushel! :mmph:
Now for the "E" and "I" effects
For example, ESFJ and ISFJ.
We know both types have dominant feeling, but "I" type will express facts. or poll numbers, say those against the tax cuts. The "E" type will talk about how wrong it is and how it does not help poor people
Te reason for this difference is "E" types show to others their dominant side while "I" types show the less dominant type.
Books on this often say "E" types send out their Captain, while "I" types send out their Sargent in relating to others.
They are both dominant on feeling, but introverts show their less dominant side publicly .
Actually, usually the "I" type will feel even more strongly about their values but tend to keep it more personal.
Those is much more to this but I have made it clear, if you read all my posts for you to tell what each of the 16 personality types are like.
I may say more later, but I am not feeling well, and it is time for me to go to a warmer climate.
For example, ESFJ and ISFJ.
We know both types have dominant feeling, but "I" type will express facts. or poll numbers, say those against the tax cuts. The "E" type will talk about how wrong it is and how it does not help poor people
Te reason for this difference is "E" types show to others their dominant side while "I" types show the less dominant type.
Books on this often say "E" types send out their Captain, while "I" types send out their Sargent in relating to others.
They are both dominant on feeling, but introverts show their less dominant side publicly .
Actually, usually the "I" type will feel even more strongly about their values but tend to keep it more personal.
Those is much more to this but I have made it clear, if you read all my posts for you to tell what each of the 16 personality types are like.
I may say more later, but I am not feeling well, and it is time for me to go to a warmer climate.
Ah, but the full house analogy is good for my side of the issue too.
The full house means you stop offering your hospitality because you have no more to give. What this means is the person who is not at the moment capable of giving sympathy and empathy has withdrawn emotionally and is not offering them at this time. Thus, no sympathy or empathy right now. It doesn't matter what the reason for the withholding of sympathy and empathy is, the person from whom it is withheld sees only that it is withheld. I mean, how empathetc or sympathetic would it be to tell someone, well, I'm just not capable of giving you these things right now so you're just out of luck. Go somewhere else. That's what the innkeeper does when he hangs out his No Vacancy sign in your analogy. The parallels hold all the way through.
Well, our overworked innkeeper could sympathetically point travelers in the general direction of the nearest Motel 8.
On the whole I agree with your assessment. Other than your captious approach to the situation....is there a contention lurking around here? :idunno:
I wouldn't call my approach captious, Where have I said you are somehow at fault just because we disagree? I just like to drill down into a subject as far as I can. It seems to me it simplifies things to break them down as far as possible. (The greatest ideas are often the simplest.) But, that's just me. I don't see any real contention hanging around anywhere. It's just the deeper I go into something the better I understand it so I will worry things around quite a bit. Kind of like a dog with a bone.
If you dislike that, don't respond. It's nothing personal against you or anyone else.
It's not me you're having issues with...rather, it's our poor, tired innkeeper's motives you seem at variance with!
It's not me you're having issues with...rather, it's our poor, tired innkeeper's motives you seem at variance with!
Yeah, and our poor emotionally overwrought person who cannot dish out any sympathy can simply say, Sorry, I have nothing for you. Go talk to someone else. :chuckle:
Seems you focus on action; I the intention thereof.
You judge, I empathize.
Interesting :think:
Speaking of judging.... You mistake my reasoning.
Let's say you are walking down the street behind someone several inches taller than you are. Someone behind the both of you calls out his name and when he swings around to see who called his name his elbow comes up and hits you dead center on your nose. The impact breaks your nose and blood runs everywhere..
Let's look at a different scenario. You're walking down the same street and someone comes up to you and for no reason punches you in the nose and breaks it. Blood runs everywhere from your broken nose.
Now, under which scenario did your nose NOT get broken? Did the motive, or lack of it, make any difference in the fact that your nose is now broken? Nope. End result is the same.
Now, back to your analogy. We have two different scenarios here now too. In scenario one the innkeeper is full up and has his No Vacancy sign out. In scenario two the innkeeper just got busted for selling drugs out of his establishment, and the cops have seized his property and closed his inn. As a result the inn is closed. When you drive by there are no lights on and no chance of getting a room.
Does the result change in either scenario? Not a bit. You have to look elsewhere for your room.
So, in both illustrations the motive/reason_why doesn't affect the result. The result is exactly the same either way.
Now to the example of someone not getting sympathy from someone to whom he looks to recieve it.
Scenario 1. Let's say the grieving person looks to a person who is just a plain old jerk and gives him no sympathy.
Scenario 2 Let's say that person's wife just walked out on him after he had found out she was cheating on him and confronted her about it. As a resut he is far too upset to give give anyone else any support and sympathy. He is in dire need of it himself. As a result he gives the other grieving person no sympathy. He is simply incapable of doing so at the time.
Now, in either scenario did the result equal the grieving person getting sympathy? Nope. The results are equal.
That is what I focus on. I don't care about the reason why the person recieved no sympathy. So, I didn't judge anyone or anything. I just look at the results. I'm a results oriented thinker. I look to see if something works or doesn't work. I look at the logic behind the situation, and I tend to ignore the subjective and emotional aspects of it. That is typical of ENTPs.
Lon
Well-known member
Something something...paved with good intentions.... (road to hell). I wonder who first came up with that phrase. Our good intentions are our motives, but sometimes they are just P.C. correct words that aren't really our owned values. Jesus said out of the heart, the mouth speaks, and that what comes out of us, is what makes us clean or unclean. James 2:14-17 is interesting to me, in that it assumes a person has the availability and resources to meet another's need. If it didn't, James would be talking about 'works salvation.' To me, he obviously means putting 'words' in action. Conversely, however, if a guy(girl) talks the talk but it really isn't in his/her heart to do the thing, as soon as they have money, resources, availability, they don't do it. To me, that's what James is talking about, not 'works salvation.' Such would be a veneer understanding that goes back to actions and never mind your heart motive in such a situation. To me, James cannot possibly be talking about that. Rather, James must be seen as reinforcing Jesus' words that what we do, already comes from a heart that decided long before such occurred, what it was going to do. Agape, then, reaches beyond our temperaments, and already has compelled a believer to do what he/she is called to do. The temperament is subsumed by Christ's temperament.
Again, interesting.
I'm fairly certain that if you were to fall into the role of the innkeeper you would at least desire/expect some reasonable degree of understanding from the weary traveler.
If so, what is your rationale for denying the innkeeper your sympathy?
In your mind did the innkeeper's action justify your denial of sympathy?
Back to the 'bloody nose' analogy: Since you treat each scenario equal to its consequent (a bloody nose), would your reaction likewise remain identical toward someone who hit you by accident equal to an individual who intentionally attacked you? How would you handle each situation logically... identically?
I have very few expectations concerning what the public's reaction to anything will be. l have had my own business, and worked in a trade for most of my working life in which I had to deal with people every day. So I've pretty much seen it all, from gratitude to someone trying to take advantage of me and bad mouthing after I had just given them about $100 worth of free labor and parts because they were broke. Plus, I grew up in a very dysfunctional family so have pretty much seen the worst humanity has to offer. It all leads to very few expectations. Jesus taught that. He said, beware of men. Don't place your trust in them and I know of no one who has high expectations of good behavior from those they do not trust.
If a person who deals with the public takes everything people do to them personally, well, they are going to be very miserable and most likely have a heart attack after a while. I chalk it up to the effects of sin.
The broken nose? I probably would avoid the person who punched me deliberately, but that would come from lack of trust. Having my nose broken either way would still hurt the same amount. It would still be the same amount of pain. I don't know if you've ever had a serious injury that happened inadvertently, but the fact it happened accidently doesn't make it hurt any less. I had a guy slam a car hood on my fingers. Those broken bones in the end of my fingers along with the fingernails torn out two fingers didn't feel any better because he didn't mean to. And if he had meant to do that, it still couldn't have made it hurt any more than it did. Pain is pain whether it is inflicted inadvertently or intentionally.
I would avoid the person too, who would say something like the character in the video who displayed no sympathy. A broken nose heals. It hurts for a little while and goes away. The effects of the lack of compassion stays far longer and is far more damaging in the long run. Both would hurt, but I view the lack of compassion as a lot more harmful than a punch in the nose.
So, you value and desire compassion and sympathy for yourself yet, fail to see the value in giving other's the same consideration?
Yes, physical pain is painful...that is tautologically obvious and does not vary with context. The emotional context of the situation is a deeper issue.
Would you avoid the person who accidently hit you in the nose, as well?
I ask this because - if not - you indeed have made a judgment in discerning between the two incidents, specifically a moral one. Therefore, the two incidents are not identical.
I don't believe I've ever said all instances are equal in all respects. I have said the results were equal because the person not getting support didn't get support no matter what the motive of the other person. We all make moral judgments about things. It's part of being human. But, I think we can all look strictly at two results and see if they are equal.
As a Christian I think the inner thoughts of a person are very important on a moral basis. Christ taught that explicitly. He also taught that results mattered too, and that the hypocrite who claimed to be a follower of God, but didn't follow in His footsteps would have no different of a result than the person who made no claim of following God. The hypocrite and the honest person who just says I don't believe it and never changes his mind, have equal outcomes. The results are equal no matter what is professed. To me this is how I come to my position on the sympathy/empathy issue and what really constitutes sympathy. To me the person who is a hypocrite about it is no different than the person who just flat out refuses to sympathize. As Lon said, empathy/sympathy doesn't dwell in either heart.
Well, now that you're aware of the inkeeper's emotional burden you're free to offer him or her your moral support as well. Correct?
What is it that makes you think I ever condemned him? Can someone give/rent that which does not exist at the moment? It's impossible. It appears you have misread me all thoughout this conversation.
Who said anything about condemnation?
I'm simply offering you a perspective in openly empathizing with the innkeeper's side of the issue...which was dismissed by you prior.
Just how did I dismiss something I never addressed? I never said anything one way or the other about the innkeeper having or not having any empathy. It was your analogy and I simply commented on the result end of the analogy. His having or not having empathy for someone for whom a room is not available is a moot point. It doesn't change the fact that he has no rooms available. Tell, me, how often have you stopped at a motel/hotel/inn/bed_and_breakfast with a No Vacancy sign out and asked them if they really desired to rent you a room and were just brokenhearted because they couldn't? This is so tied to their own financial self-interest that it is impossible to know if empathy really exists in this situation, unless, of course, you think you can read their minds. An inn keeper may enjoy his work without having any real empathy for his guests. He is in the business to make money, to support himself. How you think it is possible to distinguish real empathy from self-interest is hard for me to see.