:kitteh:Thank you very much for this post. I actually means a lot to me, even if you call me a prig. )
My political position for most of my life was Liberal Democrat, but reading David Horowitz's Radical Son and The Black Book of Communism cured me of that, but I still remain liberal on most social issues except Identity Politics which can lead to very bloody consequences. i own several guns and have on two occasions had to use one to convince unwanted guests that they should not continue to try to enter my house. Fortunately they saw the light of reason and left. As for my getting aggressive, you are right. Unfortunately for me I tend meet what I perceive coming at me. As it's my perception I realize that I can be wrong. i also think I tend back off as soon as I believe the other person has. My sarcasm can be a little nasty, but it is actually the lesser of two evils. Now you have to explain, in detail please why you think I am a prig. Asshole I will accept as I have actually caught myself in that role but immediately stopped. But prig? I believe that you have my best interests at heart so this may be a chance to see myself as others ...
It wasn't the intial post. Around these parts, we have a high tolerance for intricately-wrought systems, after all. We could jump on board and riff on it under other circumstances. I think it was:
1. The implied motives behind the system: to divide people further by personality and pigeonhole them politically. There's not enough freedom involved with that, enough access to exploration and saying the opposite of whatever party line they usually tow. So despite being a cool system, that's petting an INTP cat in the wrong direction. Perhaps you didn't intend that, so this will come as a surprise that maybe it was seen as such.
2. When people rejected the spirit and/or the letter of your system, your response was generally something along the lines of "you don't read very well." That's a personal attack. Attacking your system is one thing, attacking a poster is just starting a fight. You can explain things without implying people are dumber than you are.
And all of this arises from what I would guess is a desire to be believed. However, if your system works, it exists on its own, independent of anyone's flawed interpretation of it. So maybe don't invest in others' reception of it this way. You don't need them to believe it if it's true. And if it's true, it should be a lot easier to explain how it works without getting testy. That's supposed to be the fun part. Even if the objections are cranky, it still can be fun to figure out where they're coming from: what, exactly, is making people cranky.* And you certainly have the time, since a true system doesn't actually need you to defend it. You just need to keep explaining it rationally. Meanwhile, if you create a hostile environment, you're going to discourage people from adding thoughts that might help you further explore the idea. Not everyone is going to want to take on combat, and those who might demur could have useful ideas you would enjoy thinking about.
Hope that makes sense and helps. It's cool that you were genuinely interested. Many people wouldn't have the self-confidence to explore that.
*Sometimes the answer is they're cranky people. But not always. :th_wink: