Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: If you understand these, you are probably not Delta

  1. #1
    eunice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    Ne-INFj
    Posts
    2,955
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default If you understand these, you are probably not Delta

    Because I don't! Not at all. I was already lost from the beginning. If you understand these, please tell me which quadra or/and what information elements are present.

    College essays written by a friend from Psychology class:

    Does our objective view of others have schizophrenia too?

    Thomas Nagel says that the objective view a person holds is schizophrenic - it is split into two disparate elements: spectator and participant. He claims that “it devotes itself to the interests and the ambitions, including the competitive ambitions, of one person while at the same time recognizing that he is no more important than anyone else and that the human form of life is not the embodiment of all value.”[1] I agree with Nagel, but I do not think that our objective view of others has a split personality as well. I would argue instead that our objective view of others can only be a spectator with regards to other people, and that being a participant results in a shift to a subjective view. When it comes to viewing other people and their lives, we cannot participate, or “devote ourselves to the interests and [their] ambitions”[2] unless we first understand them. And in order to obtain this understanding, we need to empathize with them, an action which in itself entails a subjective viewpoint.

    Of course, one can argue that we can just take the objective view that he has of himself. In that case, it would not be a subjective view because it was originally his objective view. But is this borrowed view truly able to be a participant? I do not think so. There won’t be the same feeling of psychological empathy, because one can’t truly understand another’s interests and ambitions just by looking at them. Consider this scenario: the person you view has the ambition to be a doctor because it’s meaningful to him. Can you understand how it’s meaningful to him just by looking at it from his objective point of view? The answer is no. All we can grasp is that it is meaningful in some way to him, we do not understand why. We cannot grasp his drive UNLESS we can identify with why he finds meaning in his ambition, a task which will not be accomplished unless our borrowed objectivity becomes authentic subjectivity.

    To further develop this argument, let us consider Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner”. Through an analysis of a scene in this film, I will attempt to show that when one becomes a participant, one shifts to a subjective view. The movie is set in 2019 where Replicants, machines identical to humans in every way but programmed without emotions, are produced and used as slaves by mankind. Because of the fear that the Replicants might develop emotions of their own over time (thus making it much more difficult differentiate a Replicant from a real human) they are created with a limited lifespan of four years. Replicants are outlawed on Earth, and special police officers code-named Blade Runners have the duty of destroying any Replicants detected on Earth. Deckard is an ex-Blade Runner who is given the task of tracking down and destroying a band of Replicants that are loose in Los Angeles.

    It is Deckard’s perception of the Replicants that I would like to analyze. During the course of the movie, he moves from treating them as objects to be hunted down and destroyed to viewing them as being equally human to himself. He initially holds an objective spectator view at first, but when he becomes a participant in their “lives”, his view becomes subjective. This theme is raised in many scenes, but the scene I will analyze in depth is from 1:37:55 to 1:40:36. Roy is the leader of the band of Replicants loose on Earth, and this scene is his death scene.

    In the scene right before this, Deckard is fleeing from Roy, having has lost his gun. Roy stalks Deckard through the entire building and chases him all the way to the rooftop. Desperate to escape, Deckard finally makes a death-defying leap from one building to another, but barely manages to hang on to a beam. As he struggles to maintain his weakening hold, Roy stands over him and remarks: “Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave.” (1:37:38 - 1:37:46) Right before he falls, he is rescued by Roy (1:37:55 - 1:38:40) and this is when his perception begins to change.

    Deckard, through the constant threat of death, has been given a taste of what existence must have been for the Replicants. Roy’s remark about living in fear helps Deckard realize that Replicants live in constant fear of death and feel like slaves to this fear. Through this ordeal, Deckard has become a participant in the same fear that Roy has always felt, and realizes that his experience of living in the fear of death is similar to that experienced by the Replicants. Because of this realization, he can now empathize with Roy. His initial detached view of Roy as “Dangerous enemy: Must flee” turns to something more subjective.

    As Roy squats down before the bewildered and fearful Deckard, he notes sadly that all his memories will be lost when he dies: “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in the rain.”(1:38:40 - 1:39:23) He then gives his last words: “Time to die” (1:39:27 - 1:39:30).

    Deckard is moved deeply by Roy’s last words. As he sits there watching Roy die, he reflects on his new understanding that Roy was concerned with the same issues that humans are concerned about in his epitaph: “All he’d wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got?” (1:40:13 - 1:40:24). Deckard then laments his inability to help Roy: “All I could do was sit there and watch him die.” (1:40:24 - 1:40:27). We can thus see that Deckard no longer thinks of Roy as just a machine in human form, but as a real human. He is now a participant in Roy’s life (or in this case, death) and he is no longer able to hold a dispassionate, disengaged, OBJECTIVE view of Roy, but rather possesses a view of Roy that falls into the subjective viewpoint.

    As observers watching this death scene, we too initially just view Roy as a machine. Director Scott attempts to change our perception of Roy as an object into a subject by using many techniques to get us to participate in Roy’s death. When Roy assumes a wistful, faraway look as he speaks about his memories, we relate to that, for we do the same things when we recollect sweet and precious memories. Just before he dies, he smiles a sad and resigned smile. This is common in people who know they are about to die and have resigned themselves to it. The music in the background is soft, gentle and sad, and the xylophone is used to evoke in us a sense of wonder, magic and of a sacred moment. The scene directly following Roy’s death plays on our religious sensibilities, for the dove flying off into the sky is symbolic of his “spirit” ascending to heaven. Finally, Deckard’s epitaph is meant to guide us into thinking that Roy was just as human as we are and into empathising with him - he is faced by the same problems we ourselves face.

    All this shows that once we become a participant, the objective view of others is lost and the subjective viewpoint takes over. Before Roy’s death we vilified him - he is the hero’s arch-nemesis; a machine masquerading as a human. Yet after we have begun to identify with him, we no longer see him as just another Replicant, but as a human trying to deal with human problems. We see him subjectively. Therefore, the objective view of others is not split into spectator and participant, and it turns to subjectivity when we become participants.

    References:

    Nagel, Thomas. (1989). The View From Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Scott, Ridley (Director). (1982). Blade Runner. Columbia Tristar Fims.




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [1] Nagel, Thomas. (1989). The View From Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page 221

    [2] Ibid, Page 221
    His first essay in college. So it is less polished than the previous one:
    Eliminating Elimative Materialism: At what cost the truth?

    Do you have a mind? The simple common-sense answer would of course be yes. But wait! That’s not what science tells you. No, you actually DON’T have a mind! It’s just your brain playing tricks on you. What you think is your mind is merely the result of certain neurons in the brain firing little charges of electricity. You insist you do have a mind? Get real, science, neuroscience in particular says otherwise. The mind IS the brain. Believe science or you’re a Witch-hunter from the Salem Witch Trials.

    Does this argument make any sense? Well, to some it does. Paul Churchland is unapologetically supportive of this view of the mind-brain problem. In his article “Eliminative Materialism” he argues that there will not be any other way to explain exactly what the mind is, and that eventually, materialism will eliminate all remnants of the view that the mind is not 100% the brain. I don’t accept this argument however, and I think that neuroscience will not succeed at killing off the mind. My thesis is that we should bury eliminative materialism not only because it does not have a good chance at explaining the mind, but also because it threatens society in dire ways.

    What are the arguments for eliminative materialism? Firstly, Churchland claims that there will not be any successful theory that accommodates the existence of the mind which is apart from the brain:

    “…the one-to-one match-ups will not be found, and our common-sense psychological framework is a false and radically misleading conception of the causes of human behaviour and the nature of cognitive activity.”

    Here Churchland argues that there will never be any discoveries that serve to reconcile our common-sense understanding of the mind, or folk psychology, and neuroscience. However, he contradicts himself later when he says “there are vastly many more ways of being an explanatorily successful neuroscience while not mirroring the structure of folk psychology.” First he says that there will never be any discoveries, next he admits that the possibility of these match-ups being found does exist, however slim they may be.

    Churchland goes on to claim that this understanding of our minds we possess is a very misguided and false way of looking at the mind-brain mystery, and that folk psychology fails rather miserably to explain many phenomena associated with the mind that is very familiar to us:

    “So much of what is central and familiar to us remains a complete mystery from within folk psychology. We do not know what sleep is, or why we have to have it…We do not understand how learning transforms each of us from a gaping infant to a cunning adult, or how differences in intelligence are grounded. We have not the slightest idea how memory works, or how we manage to retrieve relevant bits of information instantly from the awesome mass we have stored. We do not know what mental illness is, nor how to cure it.”

    Yes, it is true that folk psychology cannot explain sleep, memory or learning. Yet for Churchland to claim that neuroscience is able to explain these phenomena is misleading, because neuroscience cannot explain them either. While neuroscience enables us to learn about the brain, it does not explain the above-mentioned phenomena of the mind. Knowing about something and explaining something are not the same. In his article “The Mysterious Flame”, Colin McGinn uses Thomas Nagel’s animal phenomenology to argue this point. This argument states that although we spend years and years studying everything there is to know about the brain of a bat, we would have no inkling of what it would actually be like to be a bat. We would have no idea at all what it feels like to flit about in the night, navigating via echo-sounding. Thus, McGinn concludes:

    “We could know all about the bat’s brain as a material system, but that would not give us knowledge of what it is like to be a bat…it would not give us complete insight into the bat’s consciousness. Thus, knowledge of the brain does not amount to knowledge of the mind”. When it comes to phenomena such as experiencing pain and emotions, folk psychology admittedly doesn’t do a good job. So how about neuroscience? The answer is “neither does neuroscience”. All neuroscience has been able to do so far is to explain which parts of the brain are active when we experience things such as pain and when we feel emotions such as anger and desire. It does not explain these phenomena at all. Explaining what happens and what it is are entirely different things. In fact, McGinn addresses very issue when he argues:

    “What makes the concept pain different from the concept C-fiber firing is precisely that the two concepts express distinct properties, so we cannot say that these properties are identical. The appearance of pain cannot be reduced to C-fiber firing…but appearances are what the mind consists of. So the mind cannot be reduced to the brain.”

    Hence, on an intellectual level, the arguments for eliminative materialism are not convincing. More than that, I think that we should stop eliminative materialism in its tracks because it holds dire consequences for the world. What do I mean by this? Let us suppose that eventually, the truth is discovered and it is revealed that there is no mind, only the brain and electro-chemical changes. What are the implications of this discovery? I believe that the implications are dire and harmful to human well-being. In reducing the mind to the brain, one would also reduce things such as faith, emotions and even talent to mere firing of neutrons. It would beggar society greatly!

    Let us now imagine that we are in a world where the mind has been disproved, as Churchland would have it. That means that religion is merely a construct of our brains; certain neurons firing certain frequencies created Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc. We hence have no soul. We are nothing but physical matter, and once the body dies, it’s over. There is no heaven to look forward to, because heaven is just a construct of our brains. God, gods, and goddesses do not exist. So now let me pose a question: where would we humans go for comfort? Imagine the aftermath of September 11 without religion to comfort the grief-stricken and distraught people of America. Think of the disillusionment people will experience when they realize that life is only about fulfilling one’s wants; no higher calling exists. The fact is that we humans need something to believe in. Why take it away for the sake of a cold hard truth that leaves us desolate? At what cost is the truth obtained?

    I suppose that even the notion of comfort would be called into doubt as well, because like everything else, comfort is merely the brain’s response to experiences by firing neurons and causing chemical changes. But wait, if that were the case, it would mean that eventually, we would learn how to duplicate the exact processes that take place when we are comforted. It doesn’t stop here either. All our emotions could be duplicated as well. How amazing! I predict that the next hugely successful therapy would be “Comfort Clinics”. Feeling sad and heartbroken? No worries, head over to your nearest Comfort Clinic and we’ll fix you up in no time! A few electrodes here and there, an injection or so, and voila! You’re happy again.

    Even our ways of learning would not be spared. Talent would become an obsolete word, because no one needs it anymore. If one were lousy at something, all it takes is a few chemicals to remedy it. Take the arts for example. All we need to do is to find out which neurons make an artist or a musician and stimulate them. Anyone could be a Picasso! I can envision a new version of the Do-It-Yourself Kit: the “Make-Yourself-Into-Something-You’ve-Always-Wanted-To-Be Kit”! Be an artist instantly without the hassle of going for hours of art lessons every week! In the end, the uniqueness of each work of art would be compromised. Since everyone can paint like Van Gogh, there won’t be anything special about his art anymore. What would be the point of music and art then?

    In conclusion, I don’t believe that it is really worth it to beggar ourselves socially and culturally for the sake of a truth leaves us cold and impoverished. Let us now grab our shovels and bury eliminative materialism so that we can remain rich without the dreadful and unnecessary truth.

    References:

    Churchland, Paul. (1984). “Eliminative Materialism.” In Matter and Consciousness.
    Cambridge: MIT Press. pp. 43-49.
    McGinn, Colin. (1991). “Consciousness – Still Unexplained After All These Years.”
    In The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World. Oxford:
    Blackwell Books. pp. 1-29.

  2. #2

    Default

    I seems rather Ni.
    So, either Beta or Gamma. I am inclined to say Beta.
    Classical socionics: (), ILI-Ni
    Dual-type theory: INTp-ENTp

    5w6 sp/sx
    MBTI: INTJ

  3. #3
    eunice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    Ne-INFj
    Posts
    2,955
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconoclast IX
    I seems rather Ni.
    So, either Beta or Gamma. I am inclined to say Beta.
    What is Ni about it?

  4. #4
    xyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7,709
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How about if you can read past the first 3 sentences, you are not delta?
    "Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."

    - Voltaire

  5. #5
    eunice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    Ne-INFj
    Posts
    2,955
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No one understood what he had written?

    Anyway, while I had a hard time trying to understanding his writings, they never fail to fascinate me because he seems to have a very different line of thoughts.

  6. #6
    eunice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    Ne-INFj
    Posts
    2,955
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LokiVanguard
    How about if you can read past the first 3 sentences, you are not delta?
    LOL! That was initially what I had experienced, but I brought myself to finish the whole thing.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    907
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmm I did the same thing when I was at Uni as the author of these texts. I pulled stuffed from a wide array of sources together when i wrote essays too (like he does when he quotes Bladerunner). The writer may well be INFp as he has a creative and original approach to his subject matters. I happen to love that scene in the movie the text describes too

    But my first impression was similar to Jessica's, I pitied the poor teacher who has to read stuff like this lol.
    INFp

    If your sea chart does not match reality, go with reality (Old mariner saying)



  8. #8
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm sure I could understand his writing.

    The question is simply, why bother?

    Unless you lived 100+ years ago and are now dead, clarity is your friend when writing.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    2,916
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Do you have a mind? The simple common-sense answer would of course be yes. But wait! That’s not what science tells you. No, you actually DON’T have a mind! It’s just your brain playing tricks on you. What you think is your mind is merely the result of certain neurons in the brain firing little charges of electricity. You insist you do have a mind? Get real, science, neuroscience in particular says otherwise. The mind IS the brain. Believe science or you’re a Witch-hunter from the Salem Witch Trials.
    WTF?! Didn't s/he contradict himself/herself a few times there??
    INTp
    sx/sp

  10. #10
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  11. #11
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I didn't get past the titles.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  12. #12
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol, given that I've read the guys he brings up (Nagel, Churchland, McGinn) I can honestly say that he took this all in pretty much the opposite way I would have. I agree with the of it all.

    Though honestly, for a psychology class there seemed to be an awfully strong philosophical influence to it all. I think he could have done better in the second paper (though I guess it was actually the 'first'). Token identity theorists would probably punch him in the face. Somewhere up there, Donald Davidson is weeping.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  13. #13
    eunice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    Ne-INFj
    Posts
    2,955
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    He is actually an ENFj. My favorite ENFj. He received B+ for both essays, in case you are wondering. Hostage_Child, he talks like that IRL too. I used to discuss with someone from Socionix that people from different quadras have different writing styles, and we tend to understand those from the same quadra better. Similarly, we tend to understand better and are more likely to appreciate books from authors of the same quadra. Taking LokiVanguard's, Slackmom's, Mea's and my reactions to his essays, we had a very hard time trying to read it and there were misinterpretations as we tried to. It has been discussed under Socionix before: if you noticed those who are reading Harry Potter, the majority of the fans tend to be from the Ne/Si quadras.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eunice
    It has been discussed under Socionix before: if you noticed those who are reading Harry Potter, the majority of the fans tend to be from the Ne/Si quadras.
    Can you point me to this thread?

  15. #15
    eunice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    Ne-INFj
    Posts
    2,955
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hellothere
    Quote Originally Posted by eunice
    It has been discussed under Socionix before: if you noticed those who are reading Harry Potter, the majority of the fans tend to be from the Ne/Si quadras.
    Can you point me to this thread?
    It is actually a type thread on J.K. Rowling: http://forum.socionix.com/index.php?showtopic=1032

  16. #16
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I had absolutely no trouble understanding it. On the contrary - I found the style to be rather similar to how I write. I would have guessed ENFj. And I still can't believe so many people have so much trouble reading such style. I have to work on my writing skills then. Or better yet - avoid essay-writing altogether.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  17. #17
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  18. #18
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The first essay seemed circular.

    The second one seemed very easy to read, honestly.

    Edit: Actually, once I "structure" the first essay enough and put my head to it, I understand it...but not very easily. It seems convoluted and unclear.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  19. #19
    eunice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    Ne-INFj
    Posts
    2,955
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree that both are relatively good essays and he had put up a sound argument. It's just that he needs to be more structured. When I first read both essays, I felt as if he was just directly jotting down what was going on in his mind. From the responses so far, I guess Delta types have the most difficulty in following the structure of the essays. It could be due to weak Te in his essays, partly due to the strong philosophical influence to it. As for the second essay (the more readable one), he seemed to be using excessive Fe and Se at some point.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •