Dual-type theory: dehumanization

[tcaudilllg]

Dehumanization is the experience of seeing other humans (or animals) as not possessing a self-concept. Information metabolism-wise, self-concept is processed by extroverted feeling EM in the context of extroverted intuition IM ("imagined personage").

Although we accept the humanity of others as a cultural imperative, from a cognitive standpoint we can only experience the "reality" of a person's soul through applied N-F. We use Ne-Fe (along with Ne-Si) to identify a person as "like us" and to imagine their experience given potential actions we can take; as such, Ne-Fe is properly the function of conscience. We use Ni-Fe to trace their experiences in time, including their personal history, personal goals, and probable destiny. By the same token, we use assessments of a person's past and intended future to evaluate their relevance to us and whatever threats they may pose, thus offering us cause to ignore the conscience with respect to them. Friction exists between Ni and Ne dominants in part due to this truism.

[Gilly]

what

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think in your heart you try to do what's right tcaud. I admire that.

Though I think the issue is always about mobility vs. immobility. People with naturally big hearts like us, have an instinctive desire to stay at a stand still. To not do anything, just preach and nag in writing. Yet what does that really accomplish?

Meanwhile those that travel a lot are always absorbing everybody's essences and personalities, seeing exactly what weak points people have and how to take advantage of them. The desire to protect others weaknesses goes away when enough mobility is thrown in the picture. You're like an anchor for society with your strong left-wing views , but a necessary anchor.

Lands in turmoil always cry out for heroes. (for xena ness)

[tcaudilllg]

They are various switches for dehumanization. Although everyone has every switch, the emotional repercussions of dehumanization vary in severity from person to person and from situation to situation. Altruists experience the most repercussions, egoists the fewest. Between these two extremes runs a spectrum that can be analyzed from different angles. However in terms of least to fewest:

1. psychopaths/sadists
2. individual ethical egoists (sociopaths)
3. personal ethical egoists
4. active conflict seekers
5. passive conflict seekers
6. variable conflict seekers
7. passive conflict avoiders
8. variable conflict avoiders
9. active conflict avoiders

[tcaudilllg]

It would seem to me that dehumanization switches are the phenomena underlying unbalanced thinking.

[Birdie]

Tcaud your premise revolves around the idea of the human soul which remains questionable at best.

[rat1]

why is it so hard to believe we have a metaphysical part to us?

[tcaudilllg]

Tcaud your premise revolves around the idea of the human soul which remains questionable at best.

I don't assert the existence of a soul, only the perception of one. Under certain circumstances you may see a "soul" in someone, and in others, you may not.

We use Ne to imagine ideas of people, people who having emotions. We are ourselves an idea of self that reflects our perceived potential to act on desires. Ne has the ability to combine ideas into imagined relationships ("society", "civilization", and various heretofore unnamed senses of "oneness" between two people).

[geneiouws]

[Gilly]

why is it so hard to believe we have a metaphysical part to us?

lack of physical evidence?

Not saying we don't, but I do see why it's hard to believe.

[iauiugu]

I think in your heart you try to do what's right tcaud. I admire that.

Though I think the issue is always about mobility vs. immobility. People with naturally big hearts like us, have an instinctive desire to stay at a stand still. To not do anything, just preach and nag in writing. Yet what does that really accomplish?

Meanwhile those that travel a lot are always absorbing everybody's essences and personalities, seeing exactly what weak points people have and how to take advantage of them. The desire to protect others weaknesses goes away when enough mobility is thrown in the picture. You're like an anchor for society with your strong left-wing views , but a necessary anchor.

Lands in turmoil always cry out for heroes. (for xena ness)

WHOA that's so not true and it sounds like an excuse for staying in place. I am mobile in order to meet more people to understanding humanity as a whole better to better help all people. Finding people's weaknesses can also lead to informing people of their weaknesses so they can better protect them. This has been done for me in my life and I have done it for others.

Plus you're not responding to the original post. Kindness and viewing people as human are not the same thing. I can understand if you have never heard of this before though.

[iauiugu]

The relationship isn't really imagined; humans, like all social organisms, operate primarily through mimicry and imitation. We imitate that which is around us, and therefore a relationship is formed between the 'original' and the 'copy' within us, which is a real relationship. Ideology is a suprastructural social form that many people can share, many people can act out in a similar way, and so saying that their relationship is imaginary is giving too little credit to the power of the mind to copy and too much meaning to that which is imagined. I'd rather say that relationships and things like souls are social constructs, that the relationship is perceived and immaterial.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs with the language. When I see the word imaginary, I think it has a close relationship with arbitrary, which I now realize you may not have meant. Anyways.

I agree with your original premise here, generally speaking.

[iauiugu]

you can't seek physical evidence of the metaphysical. that's why it's called metaphysics

the universe functions on laws of entropy, gravity, momentum, friction, nuclear forces, magnetic forces... and there is no room for the existence of perception in this, of consciousness. is this not proof that there is more than the physical and the material?

the best definition of how life can exist is that it is a product of overcoming chance, of atoms arranging in a way that leads to a greater energy output than input due to intelligent predictions of how matter and energy moves. the law of entropy should lead to these moments of overcoming to be momentary at best, and yet they have replicated and complexified to the point of humans, dolphins, apes, bonobos, elephants... i don't believe in a discrete entity that manipulate/s/d this occurrence, but i do believe there are factors at play beyond our perception. pure empiricism is quite anthropocentric and egocentric.