Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive

Re: Manners, Respect, and Communication [ Boards: Main, Type4, Type5, Movie, Care, Chat ][ Top 10 ] [ HOME ]

Re: Manners, Respect, and Communication

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Elizabeth on October 01, 2001 at 22:02:05:

In Reply to: Manners, Respect, and Communication posted by LeftofCenter on October 01, 2001 at 09:06:50:

: The idea that 'manners' are superfluous is non-sensical. 'Manners' are simply tacit rules of behavior between members of a particular group; without 'manners' no social interaction is really possible.

>>> Then 'manners' are a fluid depending on group composition? So, for a 4 to be 'polite' on the 5 board is bad manners?

: Certainly one-like focus on manners, or mindless adherence to them is not useful. But it seems to me a truly 'logical' five would necessarily recognize 'manners' as a requirement to social adhesion and personal (non-intimate) interaction.

: With regard to 'polite' discussion vs 'roughhousing'...seems to me that 5's can go either way. In my experience as a 5 I often feel a lot of frustration when I perceive others' conclusions as flawed or over-simplified, or when faced with aggression. And sometimes my response to that frustration is to attack in the most effective way I can muster - and sometimes (as with 8's) destroying another's argument can actually serve a purpose.

: But typically I have found such 'destructive' approaches toward debate to serve little purpose beyond gratifying my infantile desire to express anger; rarely has an aggressive/insultive/attacking posture led to any real evolution of ideas in conversation (text-based or otherwise).

>>> You're spot on until you reach 'infantile desire to express anger'. That's as bad as the ole father saying to his son 'crying is childish' or 'feminine'. Anger expression is as a adult as any emotional expression and is not always counter-productive to communication. Really, if anything, it's the 5ish castle-battle mentality that is often inhibitive of discussion... aggression accompanied by withdrawl... becoming untouchable/invulnerable.

: I think the idea of extending respect toward others when communicating is not the same thing as 'manners'; it is the most logical stance to assume if one's purpose is to further communication. And if I don't feel the person I'm communicating with is *worthy* of that respect (ie, they are too stupid/dogmatic/opinionated to really communicate with in any way I find valuable), then rather than fall into the pointless game of attack/counter-attack I typically choose to simply *not* communicate with that person. Why waste my time arguing with someone who really isn't communicating anyway?

>>> Have you ever heard that make-up sex is the best sex? Sometimes the best discussions are born out of conflict.

What I'd like to know is why antagonizing people is gratifying.

Follow Ups:

Re: Manners, Respect, and Communication LeftofCenter 09:41:14 10/02/01 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : The idea that 'manners' are superfluous is non-sensical. 'Manners' are simply tacit rules of behavior between members of a particular group; without 'manners' no social interaction is really possible. : >>> Then 'manners' are a fluid depending on group composition? So, for a 4 to be 'polite' on the 5 board is bad manners? : : Certainly one-like focus on manners, or mindless adherence to them is not useful. But it seems to me a truly 'logical' five would necessarily recognize 'manners' as a requirement to social adhesion and personal (non-intimate) interaction. : : With regard to 'polite' discussion vs 'roughhousing'...seems to me that 5's can go either way. In my experience as a 5 I often feel a lot of frustration when I perceive others' conclusions as flawed or over-simplified, or when faced with aggression. And sometimes my response to that frustration is to attack in the most effective way I can muster - and sometimes (as with 8's) destroying another's argument can actually serve a purpose. : : But typically I have found such 'destructive' approaches toward debate to serve little purpose beyond gratifying my infantile desire to express anger; rarely has an aggressive/insultive/attacking posture led to any real evolution of ideas in conversation (text-based or otherwise). : >>> You're spot on until you reach 'infantile desire to express anger'. That's as bad as the ole father saying to his son 'crying is childish' or 'feminine'. Anger expression is as a adult as any emotional expression and is not always counter-productive to communication. Really, if anything, it's the 5ish castle-battle mentality that is often inhibitive of discussion... aggression accompanied by withdrawl... becoming untouchable/invulnerable. : : I think the idea of extending respect toward others when communicating is not the same thing as 'manners'; it is the most logical stance to assume if one's purpose is to further communication. And if I don't feel the person I'm communicating with is *worthy* of that respect (ie, they are too stupid/dogmatic/opinionated to really communicate with in any way I find valuable), then rather than fall into the pointless game of attack/counter-attack I typically choose to simply *not* communicate with that person. Why waste my time arguing with someone who really isn't communicating anyway? : >>> Have you ever heard that make-up sex is the best sex? Sometimes the best discussions are born out of conflict. : What I'd like to know is why antagonizing people is gratifying.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ] type5board/messages/5379.html

Your Ad Here