*shoves loudly into this gathering of Is* Yo yo yo E is IN DA HOUSE!!!!! First order of business: yov, I am totally ready to challenge you for the title of Way Better Judge of All the Awesome Things. If you disagree, why don't we find a time to meet up and sort this out. I think a very large and social networking gathering with tons of strangers in a very big city would be JUST the venue for us to select the Way Better Judge.Lalaith wrote:Typical INTJ.yovargas wrote:How dare you, I am always the best judge! Of all the things!
If Jewel's not a J, I will eat my hat - which hat I still don't own after years of threatening to buy one for figurative consumption purposes.Jewel, I could see you as an INFJ. I think your J is quite strong, actually. At first, I might have thought you were an S, but ISFJ doesn't seem to fit you very well. So what about ENFJ? You know whether you're an E or an I, though, and I do find that hard to judge* on a messageboard. Is your I strong or are you closer to the E end of things?
From an extrovert perspective: online interaction is, generally speaking, a consolation prize/substitute for the real thing, at times when circumstances mean that real life interaction is not possible. After saying that, I immediately have to clarify that this board has a special place in my heart (and the hearts of the other extroverts who post here, I'd wager), and that general principle is not solely what drives any of us to continue to post here, I suspect.*Actually, the fact that we all post on a messageboard means, in my experience, that we are more likely to be introverts. The extroverts I know have little patience for this mode of communication and fellowship.
That said: I found TORC when I was studying for 1L exams in law school. My college friends had moved away, I was stuck in Virginia to study for finals, and because I was in front of my computer all day, I didn't have the chance to interact meaningfully with many people outside of my computer - so I started interacting with people inside of my computer. (That doesn't make me sound crazy at all. ) I also know that I posted to my blog very intensely when I was studying for the bar exam (a time when I had sworn off even other forms of online interaction like this site.) And I see that I've started to come here more as my RL socializing time has constricted due to my job. On the other hand, at times when I've had enough free time to step away from the computer, I've been more absent from this site. I'm sharing these stream of consciousness thoughts not to offend, but to reflect: many Is on this site have suggested that they enjoy messageboard communication because it allows them to socialize in a way that's less stressful to them, whereas they find larger social gatherings that Es find desirable to be stressful and draining. It seems intuitive, then, that the rare Es who even choose to use the messageboard format would prefer in-person interactions and would find the messageboard interactions less desirable. And I'd say that's true: I'm much more interested in seeing you folks in person than in posting with you online. The messageboard is merely a compromise necessary to keep in touch across distance. After eight years in the Bay Area, the San Francisco moot of 2006 stands out as a high point of my time here, and I have to tell you guys that I still walk down Lombard Street and smile, remembering many of you there with me.
Now, on the TJ part:
Like Cerin, I am a TJ, and I strongly identify with those two letters - much more than the E and N. (I F very strongly about being a TJ. ) So perhaps it's not surprising that I relate to her discomfort with apologizing for a consequence if you don't regret the underlying action. And similarly, if I was upset by someone else's action, I would place absolutely no weight on an apology that did not regret the action, but only the consequence. Being a lawyer, I promise that I'd listen for and catch the semantic difference, too. I might even be offended by the presumed apology, if it had even the slightest hint of "I'm sorry that you were upset/offended..." - and I think there's a huge risk of the apology taking that tone when the "apologist" believes they acted correctly.
It's very difficult to say more, though, without knowing the facts of the situation about which we're commenting.