Okay, so now we're getting somewhere - if you believe everyone is unique and can't be put in a box, what is this nonsense about 'red' people and Myers-Briggs? Those are boxes, right? And in terms of needing to smash things - I'm happy to accept that there are different perspectives on things. But re-read your first post. You weren't presenting your ideas as your perspective, you were presenting them as facts. And of course, they're not facts at all. I have no issue with people disagreeing with me, but I do prefer that they disagree in a coherent way, not just spout self-contradictory silliness. So, in view of your statement that you believe everyone is unique and can't be put in a box, do you want to reconsider anything from your original post?
If it makes you feel better and since I need to people please. It's ridiculous to say hmm...no person on this earth thinks a like whether they're female or male. Labels, definitions, why don't your try to writing a book then with words, and take the meaning away and what they symbolize. I mean why don't we call a table the sky. The television a rainbow. You're whole world is defined by niches, labels, symbols, and images. It only means what people tell you in means.
Okay, so now we're getting somewhere - if you believe everyone is unique and can't be put in a box, what is this nonsense about 'red' people and Myers-Briggs? Those are boxes, right? And in terms of needing to smash things - I'm happy to accept that there are different perspectives on things. But re-read your first post. You weren't presenting your ideas as your perspective, you were presenting them as facts. And of course, they're not facts at all. I have no issue with people disagreeing with me, but I do prefer that they disagree in a coherent way, not just spout self-contradictory silliness. So, in view of your statement that you believe everyone is unique and can't be put in a box, do you want to reconsider anything from your original post? First of all...I'm not here to debate about stupid issues that you seem to be disturbed by. I have nothing to prove, and why do I care to prove anything to you. lol You're some stranger on the internet. Which has no relevance in me being a writer. You're another person who seems to focus on what people say and project your reality on to what you believe they were saying. Yes, there is miscommunication. lol That's the point of being a writer to improve on communication skills. I can't help what you perceive or how you interpret it, and that is beyond my control in your experience.
Do you really laugh out loud every time you type "lol"? It's freaking me out a little, picturing you in front of your computer, cackling away at non-funny things... But, whatever, in terms of improving our communication skills - excellent. I think that's a really good idea.
I didnt direct my statement towards you, I was just adding to what you said. And BOTH instigate and insinuate.
Well I'm sorry laughing disturbs you. I prefer to live in a positive and happy world. Not an emo one.
I'm going to write what I'm guessing may, possibly, perhaps, be your position: == Beginning of what MIGHT BE your position We need to use labels for things. Using "male" and "female" for personality characteristics is as good as any other label. If we reject labels for being imperfect, then we're never going to be able to decide on a label, and the discussion stops before it begins. == End of what MIGHT BE your position My point is that if we're grouping personality characteristics that are acknowledged to be possessed by both men and women, it's misleading to use terms whose primary meaning is to refer to men and women. Let's use some other term.
There's a sort of feedback loop, isn't there? Between labels and reality, and also between labels and perceptions. We perceive things a certain way, attach labels, and then the labels begin to affect how we perceive things. And when the labels are applied to humans and the humans are aware of the labels, the labels may affect the way the humans act. So if we label, say, gentleness as a male trait, we may be more likely to notice when men are being gentle. Or, conversely, we may be more likely to notice when women are being gentle, and remark on it in a way that reinforces the idea that the behaviour is atypical for women. And then any men or women who hear us using the label this way may change their own behaviour in order to conform to our label. Fun with stereotypes!
Really? I'd like to see a citation on that. Peer reviewed journal or government source, if you please.