RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late?

RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

crumpets -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/26/2015 12:24:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 So you think if you have worked all day writing down all your ideas on your whiteboard and some "extreme extroverts" comes crashing into your whiteboard without warning and erased all your idea from it? Would that be cool with you? You totally missed the main point, which is that there are different styles. The whiteboard is merely a technicality. You can tell when something on the whiteboard matters.

crumpets -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/26/2015 12:37:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar That's what the EMPTY whiteboards all around the office are for. There are plenty of those also; but the whiteboard wasn't the point. It was the fact that working styles differ. Even that wasn't the main point; it was merely an illustration. The main point was that people who are "always" late don't treat TIME the same way that people who are always EARLY treat time. Same word. Different meanings. J types are different than P types. J types are more rigid; P types are more flexible. They each have a totally different way of approaching the same thing.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/26/2015 12:57:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar That's what the EMPTY whiteboards all around the office are for. There are plenty of those also; but the whiteboard wasn't the point. It was the fact that working styles differ. Even that wasn't the main point; it was merely an illustration. The main point was that people who are "always" late don't treat TIME the same way that people who are always EARLY treat time. Same word. Different meanings. J types are different than P types. J types are more rigid; P types are more flexible. They each have a totally different way of approaching the same thing. It speaks exactly to the point: Your behavior is rude. Period. You're using your "type" as an excuse to justify your rudeness. People have different approaches, and still live and work together by both parties taking the other one into account and working with the fact that other people have different types, and different ways of doing things. Your position is that the entire world has to adapt to you, and that your behavior, no matter how destructive to others, is all right, because you happen to be a certain type. That, my dear, is the very essence of rudeness. Just like somebody who is always late and uses their type to justify that behavior is rude. Precisely because they expect the entire rest of the world to cater to their personality traits, no matter how destructive, instead of trying to find a middle ground. Being a certain type of person isn't the issue people are calling you out on as being rude. Your refusal to cooperate with others, and accommodate the fact that other people are different types is.

Wayward5oul -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/26/2015 2:40:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar That's what the EMPTY whiteboards all around the office are for. There are plenty of those also; but the whiteboard wasn't the point. It was the fact that working styles differ. Even that wasn't the main point; it was merely an illustration. The main point was that people who are "always" late don't treat TIME the same way that people who are always EARLY treat time. Same word. Different meanings. J types are different than P types. J types are more rigid; P types are more flexible. They each have a totally different way of approaching the same thing. Let me start out saying that I understand what you are saying. I am familair with Myers-Briggs, and I can clearly see the reasoning that you are applying here. I just don't think that you are explaining it well. An effective illustration would have shown how something that one type does can be misunderstood, and that if the other type understood that action as merely their personality type and that they are not trying to be difficult with anyone, then the action can be seen in a whole different light and the two types could find a way to work with each other. But what you described is not something that people should have to understand. What you described is something that people are taught not to do, and personality type is not an excuse for overtly rude behavior. Second, we did Myers-Briggs training at my work as well. We spent three days on it and it was honestly one of the useful and most enlightening three days of my life. It opened my eyes up to understanding how others behave, why they behave that way, how different personality traits come together to determine behavior, etc. I am a huge Myers-Briggs fan, when it is done right. But I'll tell you what I learned in that time that I am not hearing from you at all. One of the reasons we did the Myers-Briggs testing was to promote understanding at work, learn how to effectively build project teams based on what personality types can bring to the table, and what a person's strengths and weaknesses are when it comes to working with others. With the intended end result being to figure out how to best approach other with concerns, ideas, and conflicts. We were taught to consider how someone might deal with something, based on what their personality type was. We were actively working on how each one of us could understand other people better-not just their behavior, but also how to consider what value a person could bring to the table and how to encourage that. The focus of our training was not about "oh wow, now everyone should understand why I am the way that I am, so they know that's just how I am and won't be angry or offended if they don't like something that I do", you know, like when you go in and erase someone else's work on their board. The focus of our training was understanding each other so that before we approached someone with ideas or something else, we could consider how to do it in a manner that they would respond to. And to understand how someone else might interpret our actions or reactions, and to look at all of that more objectively. It was not about overlooking or excusing our own rude behavior.

Greta75 -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/26/2015 10:41:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets You can tell when something on the whiteboard matters. You can?? You can read the other person's mind too?

crumpets -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 4:41:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar It speaks exactly to the point: Your behavior is rude. Period. OK. I get what you're saying, since I have never not been called a bull in a china shop when something needed to get done. That's why I was best being in charge of skunk-works engineering projects. Management always brought me in to build an alternative approach to a complex issue, or, to fix the latest debacle. My meetings with management were of the sort where they told me to just get the job done, and to let them worry about the personnel repercussions. So, let's all agree that my working style is, shall we term it plainly, as rude. Now that we agree on my working style, we can get to the point of the folks are are "always" late to a run-of-the-mill personal meeting. Your point is that they are, likewise, of a meeting style we shall call "rude". On the other hand, for the folks who are almost always on time, even for a non-critical meeting of just one other person, we shall assume they have a working style of "polite". Fair enough. The issue STILL boils down to a difference in working styles. Specifically, the working style of how two people approach the concept of the timing of a decidedly non-critical personal event. The more flexible so-called "rude" people approach the concept of the START TIME of a non-critical personal meeting wholly DIFFERENTLY than the rigid so-called "polite" people do. Remember, we're not talking about a press conference, or a meeting with the chairman of the board. We're all talking about a decidedly non-critical run-of-the-mill event such as the meeting of two people for a personal meeting that, to one, may have no definite start and ending time, while, to the other, may have a definite start and ending time. The way two people approach the same thing can be wholly different - where the more rigid and highly inflexible the person, the more they tend to complain about the terms of a specific affronting act, while the more flexible and understanding the person, the more they'll concentrate on the entirety of the overall meeting. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Your position is that the entire world has to adapt to you, and that your behavior, no matter how destructive to others, is all right, because you happen to be a certain type. That, my dear, is the very essence of rudeness. As you noted, there are fundamentally two types of people in this world. Those who understand that other people have different working styles, and those who don't. We're not writing a PhD thesis here, so, we'll just refer to the former flexible person as "rude" and the latter rigid person as "polite", for our limited purposes here in this thread, surprising at that may sound to you. The "P" type flexible person, who understands this concept that people approach the same things wholly differently, makes "rude" use of the various ways people approach the same task, while the inflexible person, who generally is clueless about such behavioral preferences because they are so rigidly boxed in by their own "J" type polite minds, has no concept of the difference. The two types of people may approach the same task in wholly different ways. For example, I once was handed a small skunk-works team of a dozen people, roughly half of whom were in each category above. The half that was inflexibly rigid were always on time, in essence, while the flexible half often had reasons for being wildly off timing. Since this was a skunk-works team, our major task was an offshoot of the company's goals, but, because we had developed expertise in certain areas, we were OFTEN called upon to save critical projects from failure by augmenting those teams to meet a deadline. Almost invariably, whenever another division head came to me with a proposal to save their teams, I would assign the FLEXIBLE half of my team to the role, while keeping the RIGID members of the team on their original task. The flexible members of the team (i.e., the "P" types) could easily HANDLE the extreme disruption of being pulled off a task, essentially after a simple phone call to them at home during dinner, and having to start a wholly NEW TASK abruptly, to meet a midnight deadline so-to-speak, that someone else had missed. Often that meant a trip to Canada in the morning, or a day or two later, with a followup visit to France which may have taken place during their wife's birthday or their wedding anniversary, etc. (all of which they considered flexible). Often these suddenly new deadlines we volunteered to meet were only days or weeks away, so the FLEXIBLE people had to drop everything, and start on the new task, and then, when done, they easily wholly switched gears picked up where they left off on their old tasks (often with the RIGID members of the team slowly having held up their inevitably lost slack to meet original deliverables due in the interim). Knowing the working styles of the RIGID people (i.e., the "J" types), I wouldn't dare disrupt the rigid "J" types, who couldn't handle the stress. I called these "J" types, jokingly, the "factory workers". They cared more about the schedule, than the task. Again, different people approach the same task differently, depending on their working style, just as the OP and his paramour approached the same task of the meeting differently with respect to the start and stop time. In my example above, the rigid "J" types just wanted to plod along doing what they were doing without disruption, and there is a place for that type of employee. These rigid "J" type people complained like hell whenever they were disrupted and called to jet off to Boston in the morning to solve someone else's problems. They used to tell me that someone else not meeting their deadline was not their problem. I understood. So, I didn't assign THEM disruptive tasks. They appreciated me better, and I got more work out of them as a result. I assigned the disruptive tasks to the "P" types who could more easily handle the disruption. Mind you, my skunk-works team won award after award, where we accomplished things that nobody else could (of course, skunk works teams in large companies are of different types of very effective highly maneuverable teams). I remember one specific achievement was saving Services' ass when they MISSED a promised Marketing deadline, which their huge Services program management team had methodically planned out to take six months. We, on the other hand, used "wet-finger" planning, which is to say we estimated, on the fly, how long it would take, and then added or removed as much slack as we thought was needed as a plus-or-minus addendum, and that, my dear, was our schedule. One day, the VP of Marketing came to me (I was a Director in Engineering) and explained, privately, that the Services Division was about to miss an important-to-Marketing deadline which, at that time, was only a month away. We didn't even bother to ask permission of my management (they usually left me alone to make my own decisions, so, it was a normal thing for my team to not confer with upper management in my own hierarchy). This service group was well known for containing TONS of "J" type program managers, but it was woefully deficient of "P" type engineering workers. So, all they could do was plan. And plan they did. They had wonderful plans. Lovely stuff. They had SOWs, and BOMs, and pretty Gant charts and the like. But clearly, they had an execution problem. (To their credit, theirs was a complicated business decision, as usual, since Marketing needed the work done in order to tout their recent marketing campaign, but Services was incentivized by dollars per day, so, they had the factory-worker pay-by-day mentality - neither of which is wrong - both are right - but that's why Services missed Marketing's deadline). On the other hand, we, in Engineering, are very used to getting things done. All the time. We overcome obstacles every single day. So, what I did was I took the FLEXIBLE (P-type) half of the team, and told them to immediately drop everything, and to begin this new task, which, in only one month after the Services deadline was missed, was COMPLETED by our skunk-works Engineering team (remember, the "J" type program managers forecast it to take six months!). The flexible (P type) team members worked till the wee hours of the morning, for weeks, to meet our stated goal, since I had told the Marketing folks it would take my skunk-works team about six weeks to accomplish what any Services group forecast would take them six months (we often used that ratio - and it held up, rather well over time). I used the RIGID members of the team to maintain the ORIGINAL goals, where I only slowly added on them the most critical tasks that were being temporarily dropped, and they didn't complain too much (as they understood). I can give scores of examples of how to build an effective team, using, to the team's advantage, the fact that people have different working styles, but that is just one of them (ask me some day to explain why none of our ad-hoc staff meetings had an ending time and why our staff meetings were never on a periodic schedule, but always scheduled on a case-by-case basis). quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Precisely because they expect the entire rest of the world to cater to their personality traits, no matter how destructive, instead of trying to find a middle ground. Up until now you have been wholly correct, in that my working style is termed, by many others, as "rude" (and brutally effective at getting things done), which bruises the styles of some others (whom we simply brush aside like water flowing around obstacles). But here, you are only partially correct. Do you think the Services team had nice things to say about us taking over their role, and getting done in six weeks what they had forecast to take six months? We joked that the way we got things done that nobody else could was that we flowed around obstacles instead of trying to get the people to do THEIR jobs. Whenever someone didn't do their job, instead of trying to find a "middle ground", we simply flowed around them. We did their job, for them, and we got the credit, not them. Yet, we also were the brunt of the bruised egos we left in our wake. It goes with the territory of such "rude" (but effective) people. We met their politely missed deliverables, not them. We accomplished things with our tiny (rude) skunk works team that (polite) teams ten times the size of ours could never accomplish. Sometimes there is no room for the polite "middle ground". Sometimes you need a bull-in-a-china shop type skunk-works team. Again, different ways of approaching the same task aren't better or worse. They're just different. They both have their separate pros and cons. And you have to KNOW the differences, in order to make effective use of their different working styles. In the case of the OP's personal meeting, the difference in meeting-time styles is readily apparent. We, of course, don't hear the other side of the story, which, for all we know, could be that she cared more about the personal OUTCOME of the meetings, than the trivial (to her) starting time. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Being a certain type of person isn't the issue people are calling you out on as being rude. Your refusal to cooperate with others, and accommodate the fact that other people are different types is. Again, you speak wisdom, but you come to the wrong conclusion. They often call upon people like me to fix problems that take a style which I will say the Israeli's love, but the Japanese hate. After my first visit to Japan to solve a critical problem, I told them I'd prefer to go to Israel instead. In Japan, we had to DEFER to authority. We even had to sit in the meeting room according to the hierarchy of the customers. We did that whole business-card thing of respect, and we were told to never say no and to never commit to iffy deadlines. As a result of this (and many other factors), we got almost nothing done in the formal meetings in Japan. All the work was done after copious beers, after hours, and even then, we were always warned not to bruise people's fragile egos (I had never been warned so much as when I traveled to Shin-Yokohama and Tokyo). Jesus. The Japanese have petty egos. On the other hand, the Israelis LOVED us. They called us back time and time again. Whenever we caused a ruckus (again, usually when we were called upon to deliver something that other teams couldn't deliver), the management team just smiled and told me to keep on doing what we were doing. Mind you, we were cocky. I don't know if that comes through here, but we were as confident as hell that we could accomplish anything we agreed to do. As an Engineering team, it was unusual that we didn't even HAVE a program manager. I used that req to hire another engineer. We didn't use PowerPoint. We used napkins. We didn't have weekly staff meetings. We all crowded into any office of any person who willingly or unwillingly, needed to get something done for us. Since these are complex tasks, we needed the entire company, and, since we considered half the company an obstacle, we used the other half to get the job done (i.e., it wasn't worth "meeting in the middle" because it took more time to convince them to do their job than it took for us to get their job done for them). Bear in mind I had this skunk-works role for five years (which is nearly an eternity in Silicon Valley startup days where a company goes from ten people to five thousand in those same five years). So we weathered a LOT of management teams, and back-and-forth management styles (Dilbert was, of course, always right on target). Bearing in mind I ran a skunk-works team (which is a special type of "green berets" in corporate insertion raids), making effective use of the different personality styles required, first and foremost, RECOGNIZING that people treat the same concept differently. Just as do people who are considered "always late" to a run-of-the-mill personal meeting, versus people who would always be on time even for the trivial'est of personal meetings between just two individuals.

LadyPact -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 4:48:07 AM)
<Fast Reply> Man, I remember being a single mother of two. Spend an hour on getting my appearance just so, pack the diaper bag, two car seats in the back, bottles, formula... Right up until a little person spit up on me. On my shirt. In my hair. Smelling like little person vomit. You drive a whole forty minutes, bro? Back in those days for me, ONLY forty minutes would have been a God-send. See? You want your time respected. Everybody does. What did you do to make sure she was on time? Or, is your world so vastly different than hers with the two padawans that you didn't stop to think about it?

crumpets -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 6:10:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul Let me start out saying that I understand what you are saying. I am familair with Myers-Briggs, and I can clearly see the reasoning that you are applying here. Thanks for understanding MB. Also, I'm sure that you realize the STRENGTH of any one trait is the CRITICAL factor, not the trait per se. So, when I refer to a "J" type, I'm really referring to the STRONG J types. The reason so many people misunderstand MB is that they think it's just four categories (e.g., INFJ versus ESTP). It's not. The STRENGTH of each category has a HUGE effect on the proper interpretation. A weak P is not much different than a weak J. But a strong P is very different from a strong J. Pssssst. Pssst. (hint) Couple a strong J with a strong N, and you have the makings of an inflexible idiot. In fact, the most dangerous people on the planet, IMHO, are those who are strong J and strong N, because they think they're right all the time (even though they can't possibly be because they didn't take in much measured input), and they expect everyone else to follow suit (because they are strong Js). quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul I just don't think that you are explaining it well. I agree with you. I'm also partially abusing MB, in that they don't make claims as to who will be more 'effective' overall, nor who is more 'polite'. They're just different. And, as I said, if they're weakly J or P, then they're not really J or P, they're in this polite middle ground. So, for convenience, I'm only talking strong J and strong P, where I presume the OP is an inflexible strong J while his paramour may just as likely be a flexible strong P. quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul An effective illustration would have shown how something that one type does can be misunderstood, and that if the other type understood that action as merely their personality type and that they are not trying to be difficult with anyone, then the action can be seen in a whole different light and the two types could find a way to work with each other. EXACTLY! But, here's the rub. [Warning: I'm about to be rudely unkind to strong "J" types!] I find the strong "P" types far more flexible and understanding of trivial changes to things such as meeting start and end points and locale, than the strong "J" types. Often, with respect to meeting times and places, I find, the strong "J" types care so very much about the trivial that they can miss the entire point of a meeting, because they're fuming that, for example, we suddenly moved the 11am meeting locale to the noisy cafeteria at noon on a moment's notice because one of the team members missed breakfast due to a deadline having needed to be met at 10am that day. The strong J's often feel that someone else's problem isn't their problem. Now, to their credit, the best of the strong J's at least apply their own rules to themselves (that is, if they were the one who missed breakfast, they wouldn't expect anyone else to move the team meeting just to accommodate them). Consistency in such things we may refer to as "morals" is a wonderful thing, when applied to both sides of the equation. Let's hope, for example, that the OP is just as hard on himself when HE is late to a personal meeting, as he is applying to his paramour. quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul But what you described is not something that people should have to understand. What you described is something that people are taught not to do, and personality type is not an excuse for overtly rude behavior. Since you have had MB training, you know these are only "preferences". Nothing is etched in stone. quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul Second, we did Myers-Briggs training at my work as well. We spent three days on it and it was honestly one of the useful and most enlightening three days of my life. It opened my eyes up to understanding how others behave, why they behave that way, how different personality traits come together to determine behavior, etc. I am a huge Myers-Briggs fan, when it is done right. I am glad you went through this training, which appears to be even more extensive than mine was. Yes, it opens our eyes. I still remember, to this very day, being on the ends of the U-shaped line, and staring, eye to eye so to speak, with all the OPPOSITE types, across the room, and, all of a sudden getting it. They're not stupid. They just think differently! BTW, on two MB traits, I'm on the far ends. On the other two, I'm dead center. I don't remember the percentages in the population who are so diametric, but, I think I remember it to be a small single-digit percentage. So I recognize that most people are DIFFERENT than I am, personality wise. (The strong J's are the hardest to deal with, because they are so inflexible with respect to timing, while the strong Is are also tough to educate because they only know one input and at the same time, they often can't handle conflicting detail like a weak I/S can). quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul But I'll tell you what I learned in that time that I am not hearing from you at all. Did you hear this? 1. The first item of the quartet is a preference for "energizing', whether it be E (i.e., around the bustle of people) or I (around the solitude of quiet). 2. The second item is a preference for how data is input for making decisions (e.g., does one measure a lot or do they just mostly infer data). 3. The third item is their preference for how they make decisions (specifically, do they weigh in feelings or do they just go with the cold hard facts). 4. And the last item is their preference for order (both in their own lives and in how they prefer the rest of the world to react). For the purpose of this discussion, I'm assuming the OP is a strong "J" even with respect to something as trivial as a rigid personal meeting time between two people, while I'm assuming from what the OP wrote, that his paramour is of a strong "P" type, who is more flexible about the start and stop timing of that very same meeting. quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul One of the reasons we did the Myers-Briggs testing was to promote understanding at work, learn how to effectively build project teams based on what personality types can bring to the table, and what a person's strengths and weaknesses are when it comes to working with others. Yup. Same here. quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul With the intended end result being to figure out how to best approach other with concerns, ideas, and conflicts. We were taught to consider how someone might deal with something, based on what their personality type was. Agreed. Wholeheartedly. quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul We were actively working on how each one of us could understand other people better-not just their behavior, but also how to consider what value a person could bring to the table and how to encourage that. Yes. The strong J types, as I mentioned, make great factory workers and program managers, because they care more about checking things off the "list" than they do about the details of the specific item on the list. In the case of the OP, it mattered more to him, it seems, the rigid start time of the meeting, than the actual relationship results of that meeting. This is a trait of a strong J personality. quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul The focus of our training was not about "oh wow, now everyone should understand why I am the way that I am, so they know that's just how I am and won't be angry or offended if they don't like something that I do", you know, like when you go in and erase someone else's work on their board. OK. Agreed. This is a very fair comment. In fact, a bit too fair, as I find you to be quite reasonable in how you reflected your observation of my behavior. You could have been rude to me (I wouldn't have minded all that much if you were). But, you took a middle ground, and politely reminded me that the MB isn't supposed to be an "excuse"; it's supposed to be an "understanding". quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul The focus of our training was understanding each other so that before we approached someone with ideas or something else, we could consider how to do it in a manner that they would respond to. And to understand how someone else might interpret our actions or reactions, and to look at all of that more objectively. This is a great point, which is that an understanding of people's behavior allows us to approach them using a method that THEY PREFER. I can't disagree (and, in fact, my prior story above illustrates that I essentially halved my team into the "J" and "P" types, and gave them tasks differently, based on how I understood them to be. But, in the case of the OP, we are presented with a fait accompli. We don't get the luxury of rewriting the script. The OP is always on time; and the OP's paramour is always late. I'm assuming the OP is a strong J and that the paramour is a strong P. I'm also trying to tell the OP that the paramour isn't "always late" so much as "there when she thinks she needs to be there". quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul It was not about overlooking or excusing our own rude behavior. I guess the key MB takeaway here is that the strong J types have a longer list of what they'd consider rude behavior than do the strong P types. I have assumed, all along, that the OP is a strong J type, while I have inferred from what the OP said, that the paramour is of a strong P type. The problem with strong J types (especially those who are additionally strong I types, whom I consider the most dangerous people of all) is that you can't easily get something trivially simple such as the concept of a flexible meeting time into their heads. They can fume for hours over trivial affronts such as a prospective paramour being late to a coffee-shop personal meeting. It reminds me of the guy who yelled at me out his window for using my cell phone in a parking lot while driving slowly screaming to me that it was "against the law'. Not only was he dead wrong on the law, but, in his rigid application of the law (as he saw it), he doesn't realize there is no evidence whatsoever in the US Census Bureau overall traffic accident rate statistics of ANY effect whatsoever, from exploding cellphone ownership numbers in the USA. It only matters to him that it's against the law. The fact that there is absolutely no reliable evidence that it increases the overall accident rate in the USA is wholly lost on him, because he likely has the strong I trait, which means that reliable facts such as year-over-year Census Bureau accident-rate statistics are meaningless. Instead, the strong I types cherry pick precisely targeted studies which invariably show something as idiotic as that cell-phone use is as dangerously distracting as drunk driving is (having written such papers, I fully understand their use in this context). Point is, given the exact same set of cell-phone statistics, two people come up with two totally different concepts of "order" such that the more flexible one feels curiously uncompelled to seriously heed the heated invectives hurled by the more rigid one admonishing the flexible one not to drive in a mall parking lot while holding a cell phone to his ear. Two people. Two different personalities (with respect to MB data, decisions, and order, which are the latter 3 of the 4 items). Two different ways of approaching the same task. Now back to our story. Remember what I said about what happens when you couple a strong J with a strong N? Personally, IMHO (and all other disclaimes applying), I suspect there is a good chance that our beloved OP is a strong J, coupled with a strong N, while our paramour, might be a strong P perchance.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 8:34:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets So, let's all agree that my working style is, shall we term it plainly, as rude. Now that we agree on my working style, we can get to the point of the folks are are "always" late to a run-of-the-mill personal meeting. Your point is that they are, likewise, of a meeting style we shall call "rude". On the other hand, for the folks who are almost always on time, even for a non-critical meeting of just one other person, we shall assume they have a working style of "polite". Nope. It's not a matter of always being late, or always being on time, it's a matter of: do you acknowledge other people's working styles enough to work with them in order to find a middle ground, or do you always expect your working style to be catered to because you happen to be X-style person? If you're an "always early" do you accommodate other people being sometimes late if you see they're trying to find a middle ground (polite); or do you blow a gasket every time anybody is slightly late (rude)? If you're a "spur of the moment idea guy" do you accommodate other people have a different style by not interrupting their workflow (polite); or do you expect everybody just to drop whatever they happen to be doing every time you feel the need to bounce ideas of them (rude)? quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Sometimes there is no room for the polite "middle ground". Sometimes you need a bull-in-a-china shop type skunk-works team. Bullshit. Because the whole point of the matter comes down to whether you're working with them, or storming over them, there is always room for a middle ground. Sometimes that middle ground is as simple as explaining to them why their way isn't going to work, and why, even though you know it's hard for them personally, your team needs a different approach at this time. That's what good managers do... they make people off all different types find a middle ground to get shit done. Bad managers come in and storm over other people's style without finding that middle ground. That's not to say that bad managers can't get stuff done... they can, but they do so at the cost of loosing any person with a different working style than their own, which might work in the short term, because a specialized style might benefit this specific project, but it hurts the team in the long run because it cuts out diversification. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Just as do people who are considered "always late" to a run-of-the-mill personal meeting, versus people who would always be on time even for the trivial'est of personal meetings between just two individuals. The whole point isn't if somebody is always on time, or always late but: does the "always late" person try to accommodate the "always on time" person to find a middle ground, or does one expect the other to run completely on their schedule without trying to make any accommodations whatsoever? PS: And before you get into the line of argument of "but some people can't help being inflexible and always wanting it their way, that's not being rude, that's their type!"... people always being inflexible are rude, cupcake... whether it's by choice or by personality trait, some people are fundamentally rude, just like there are people who are fundamentally stupid, or scatterbrained, or detail oriented, or lazy or ambitious. Being a "lazy type" doesn't excuse if your actions directly impact others negatively, any more than being a psychopath (another natural "type") excuses you from killing other people just because that's what you're driven to do. Wallowing in your natural tendencies is fine... until your actions start impacting others... at that point, whether your considerate of others or not determines if your polite, because you're trying, no matter how flaws your attempts may be, or whether you're a rude asshole who expects the entire world to exist in service of himself.

crumpets -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 2:17:53 PM)
I need to apologize that I used "I" for "N" (intuitive) a few times, accidentally, in my prior post, as I didn't notice the mistake until it was too late. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Nope. It's not a matter of always being late, or always being on time, it's a matter of: do you acknowledge other people's working styles enough to work with them in order to find a middle ground, or do you always expect your working style to be catered to because you happen to be X-style person? You come across as quite reasonable, which means that you probably try to accommodate other people's working styles. There's nothing wrong with that. You might never break the envelope (because committees rarely do); but you'll have a wonderful working relationship with everyone - which is a valued skill, I agree. The question is whether or not the OP can accommodate the working style of the paramour? That, I'm not so certain of. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar If you're an "always early" do you accommodate other people being sometimes late if you see they're trying to find a middle ground (polite); or do you blow a gasket every time anybody is slightly late (rude)? Here's where my strong "P" type personality plays a role. To me, time is merely a number. In fact, in the relative sense, time doesn't even really exist. We're all doomed to death, and we live and die in the blink of an eye, cosmologically speaking. In fact, the earth itself will eventually be almost engulfed by the sun, killing all life and boiling away the oceans. In the east coast of the USA, there have been three different Himalayan sized mountain ranges. Global warming might stave off the next ice age for, oh, maybe a few thousand years, Milankovitch cycles be damned, but the eventual ice age is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow morning. My point is that nothing we do matters. We're all doomed anyway. So, to answer your question, nope. I don't blow a gasket if I arrive early and others arrive late. I go with the flow. But, it doesn't matter what I do. The OP appears to be blowing a gasket because he arrived on time, but his paramour didn't. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar If you're a "spur of the moment idea guy" do you accommodate other people have a different style by not interrupting their workflow (polite); or do you expect everybody just to drop whatever they happen to be doing every time you feel the need to bounce ideas of them (rude)? If I have to answer this one truthfully, I'm as rude as hell. Given that I'm almost certainly ADHD, most would classify me as rude. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Sometimes that middle ground is as simple as explaining to them why their way isn't going to work, and why, even though you know it's hard for them personally, your team needs a different approach at this time. So, if the OP explained to his paramour that she needs to be on time, and she asks why, what would you suggest be the OP's reply?

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 3:28:20 PM)
For the record, tests like Meyers-Briggs don't work on me, because I'm too multi-faceted. I am an entirely different person depending on the context, so I can take the test for how I am at a certain job where I've been for a while, and get one result, and then take it again but answer in a manner that applies to my current relationship, and the results will be different. If I then take the test again for how I was during a different job, or different relationship, or how I am with my parents, the results will again be different. The are no "this is generally true about me in (almost) all contexts" answers I can give. Seeing that I don't currently have a job, I took it again as applicable to how I currently am in my current relationship, and the result is ENTP. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets So, if the OP explained to his paramour that she needs to be on time, and she asks why, what would you suggest be the OP's reply? If they're looking to have a D/s relationship where the D/s dynamic in effect from the very beginning, my answer would be: because I need you to start showing me that you value my time and expectations of you. If you cannot value my time, and my expectations of you, we will not ever be able to get to a situation where I can be in control, and we should stop dating. If it was dating in a vanilla context, my answer would be: because I'm feeling like I'm the only one putting effort in us getting closer together. I understand that you're busy and that you will not always be able to be on time, but I'm to a point where I need to feel like you're putting in some effort to meet me halfway as well, just like I've been understanding in the past when you've been late. I would like you to show me that effort by you trying to make sure that you're on time more often, or at least not last by as much, as a sign that you care about me as much as I am starting to care about you. If there is anything I can do to help you accomplish this, by moving the time we meet, or the location, or the frequency, please let me know. However, if you can't start showing me that you're willing to make an effort to meet me halfway in this, we should break off seeing each other any longer, because I'm not willing to enter into a relationship with a person who makes everything only about their own preferences. If they're looking to start dating vanilla first, and then slowly transition into a D/s relationship, I'd probably answer somewhere in the middle between both of those answers.

Greta75 -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 6:03:59 PM)
Ishtar, I am surprise all your responses involve threatening to end the relationship. Basically I can conclude it to you suggesting an ultimatum. I used to answer to alot of unhappiness in relationships that way, and I think it creates insecurity in the relationship. Personally, I would prefer the guy to simply tell her that it bothers him that she is never on time when meeting him and it feels kinda disrespectful of his time. Is there anything he can do to help her be on time? Even if it's setting appointments with her, and tell her the time half an hour early or 1 hour early all the time or something.

Wayward5oul -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 6:10:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Ishtar, I am surprise all your responses involve threatening to end the relationship. Basically I can conclude it to you suggesting an ultimatum. Personally, I would prefer the guy to simply tell her that it bothers him that she is never on time when meeting him and it feels kinda disrespectful of his time. Is there anything he can help her with to help her be on time? Even if it's setting appointments with her, and tell her the time half an hour early or 1 hour early all the time or something. A direct quote from Ishtar's post-If there is anything I can do to help you accomplish this, by moving the time we meet, or the location, or the frequency, please let me know. Which is a suggestion that the OP might say to his partner.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 6:15:30 PM)
I wouldn't have made the same suggestions if we're talking about an established relationship. I agree that ultimatums in relationship used at the least bit only lead to insecurity. However, we're not talking about an established relationship. We're talking about two people dating, in order to find out if they ought to be in an established relationship together. Now is the time to find out if you're compatible, which includes stopping the dating if it turns out that both parties are not compatible with each other. Otherwise every single date would have to lead to a long term relationship, now wouldn't it? Something like one person always being on time, and the other person always being late, AND it severely bothering the person always being early is exactly the thing that leads to resentment later on if a middle ground cannot be found. So yes, while dating, if you come across issues that are potential dealbreakers in the long run, or at least issues that are going to bring about long term frustration and aggravation of one of the parties, I deem it perfectly acceptable to pose the ultimatum of "Look, this isn't going to work for me long term. Either you need to work with me to find a solution that's mutually maintainable, or we need to agree that we're simple not compatible and stop seeing each other". If you're not going to discuss your potential dealbreakers -and try to find solutions for them- while you're dating, the only thing you're doing is delaying the aggravation until you're already committed to each other, at which point all of those irritations and aggravations will eventually lead to fights (which can in turn also lead to a break up, just one with a lot more pain involved).

Greta75 -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 6:29:02 PM)
Okay, I see them as an established relationship. I wonder when is it considered an established relationship. Sounds like they been seeing each other for awhile already. But yea, I guess if it's just the beginning, no point tolerating with deal breakers.

Greta75 -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 6:30:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul A direct quote from Ishtar's post-If there is anything I can do to help you accomplish this, by moving the time we meet, or the location, or the frequency, please let me know. Which is a suggestion that the OP might say to his partner. It was still tagged together with an ultimatum. If someone said to me, if this cannot be resolve, it's over, that's all I am hearing and not hearing the part where they are willing to work with me to resolve it.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 6:48:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Okay, I see them as an established relationship. I wonder when is it considered an established relationship. Sounds like they been seeing each other for awhile already. But yea, I guess if it's just the beginning, no point tolerating with deal breakers. I consider a relationships established once regular sleepovers are happening, and you've got a drawer for your stuff at the other person's house. In other words: you're starting to become closes enough with this person that they don't mind putting you both in situations where you can see each other at your worst, instead of on "dates" where everybody is always at their best behaviors (or at least trying to be). It seem to me like they're only meeting in restaurants so far, probably because she has kids. Which seems like they're still on the "presenting myself at my best, leaving out the not-so-flattering-stuff". If somebody who's still meeting you at their best is already irritating the heck out of you, it's probably best to bring it up and see if you can't work it out, and if not, break up with them. But yeah, some people don't respond well to that kind of ultimatum even when dating, so there's really nothing wrong with just saying "Look, this ain't working for me, can you help me figure out a way that works for both of us?" while leaving the "and if we can't we should stop seeing each other" unsaid. I'm kinda blunt, and I appreciate other people blunt too, so I prefer the whole "or we should stop dating" out in the open, and wouldn't match well with another person who doesn't deal well with that. But other people are different, so in other situations, that should perhaps be left unsaid.

Wayward5oul -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 6:54:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul A direct quote from Ishtar's post-If there is anything I can do to help you accomplish this, by moving the time we meet, or the location, or the frequency, please let me know. Which is a suggestion that the OP might say to his partner. It was still tagged together with an ultimatum. If someone said to me, if this cannot be resolve, it's over, that's all I am hearing and not hearing the part where they are willing to work with me to resolve it. That may be what you focus on, but that doesn't change the fact that its there. Ignoring it is a choice to focus on the negative.

Greta75 -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 7:06:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul That may be what you focus on, but that doesn't change the fact that its there. Ignoring it is a choice to focus on the negative. I wasn't focusing on the negative. I was suggesting to eliminate any "negatives" in responding to a situation like that, that would put the other party in defensive point. If you think by bringing up ultimatum, and then suggesting that the alternative is that you can work with the person, basically mentioning both together is your idea of the best solution to this problem, then that is just your opinion. And mine differs from yours.

crumpets -> RE: How To Handle People Who Are Always Late? (9/27/2015 10:44:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar For the record, tests like Meyers-Briggs don't work on me, because I'm too multi-faceted. In addition, the tests have a margin of error, which is why they repeatedly ask similar questions, so as to narrow down the response. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar The are no "this is generally true about me in (almost) all contexts" answers I can give. The MB results peg me easily, but, I'm easily figured out. I'm about as complex as a dog, which is to say I'm not complicated at all. You are apparently more so - but - for the OP - it seems that the OP isn't complicated either. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar the result is ENTP. Remember, that's meaningless alone, without the strengths. For example, you could be a strong E and a strong P but a very weak N and a very weak T, which would be exactly the same as I am, even though I'm an ESTP, simply because any weak preference score simply means we use a more balanced approach on that trait. So, for example, a weak N (intuitive) is also a weak S (sensing), since you can't have one without the other unless you're a strong N (in which case you begin to become dangerous if you're also a strong J - which - luckily - you're not!). Whew! quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar If you cannot value my time, and my expectations of you, we will not ever be able to get to a situation where I can be in control, and we should stop dating. I understand your point, which is, in a way, that the sub is, in effect, topping from the bottom in that she is determining the meeting time, clearly against the stated wishes of the so-called Dom. I guess that lack of control of something as simple as a meeting time can drive any wanna-be Dom crazy such that the rest of the Dom/sub relationship is probably doomed to failure anyway. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar I would like you to show me that effort by you trying to make sure that you're on time more often, or at least not last by as much, as a sign that you care about me as much as I am starting to care about you. This makes too much sense, so, I doubt many people who have the personality of the OP will actually go that route, for, if he did, he wouldn't be whining about it here or asking for such advice. However, my main point was that I suspect the PERSONALITIES differ too greatly in the case of the OP and his paramour. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar If they're looking to start dating vanilla first, and then slowly transition into a D/s relationship, I'd probably answer somewhere in the middle between both of those answers. Given the fact that almost all your answers are balanced, coupled with your statement that your "personality changes" (which it doesn't, but I knew what you meant), I'd say that you are a weak ENTP all around. That is, you're a weak E, a weak N, a weak T, and a weak P. The word "weak" is not pejorative. It's just a measure of the strength of that preference, and, it actually means you're a balanced E/I, and a balanced N/S, and a balanced T/F, and a balanced P/J. Since you're so balanced, almost any slightly different answer to any given set of MB questions can tip the scale in either direction. For me, the same balance occurs on the two middle traits (that of how I gather data and how I make decisions based on that data); but my energizing and order traits are far stronger, so, they never change. So, sometimes I'm an EntP, or an EstP, or an EnfP, or an EsfP - but that only means I'm strongly E and P, but weakly s and t. I'm only something like 3% of the population, where J abound and N's abound, the deadly combination being a strong J and a strong N, because they make badly unbalanced decisions and expect everyone else to abide by them. I suspect the OP is such a strong N/J while you are clearly far more balanced - and your answers exude that balance, every time.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625