Jordan Peterson

[Sol]

Both the leading and the demonstrative are the strongest, just to clarify, because some people have been talking about the demo being stronger than the leading recently.

it's also heresy as there is no basis to think 8 function is stronger than 2
while "some people" talk here a lot of bs, including you with Gulenko's subtypes

> Those are the dimensionally strongest, that's just a fact, both in model G and A.

There are no "dimensions" in model A and there is no that 8 is stronger than 2.
You are not only tell the heresy, but also show the incompetence in the basic theory.

And until such shit happens on forums, this will prevent the normal development and wider acceptance of Socionics, as someones like you mislead people about what Socionics is.

[Myst]

it's also heresy as there is no basis to think 8 function is stronger than 2
while "some people" talk here a lot of bs, including you with Gulenko's subtypes

> Those are the dimensionally strongest, that's just a fact, both in model G and A.

There are no "dimensions" in model A and there is no that 8 is stronger than 2.
You are not only tell the heresy, but also show the incompetence in the basic theory.

And until such shit happens on forums, this will prevent the normal development and wider acceptance of Socionics, as someones like you mislead people about what Socionics is.

Exactly which model do you accept?

The standard Model A of Base function, Creative function, Role function, etc...? All of it "as is", or only certain parts of it?

Right now I don't recall you really utilizing the concepts of all 8 function positions beyond sporadic mentions of the 8 information elements (Te/Ti, Fe/Fi, Se/Si, Ne/Ni), the Base function, and function dichotomies (T/F, S/N, E/I, j/p).

Could be I just don't remember now.

So, do you see validity in the rest of standard Model A?

[Sol]

Exactly which model do you accept?

Socionics is about Model A. I use it partly and try to do not go outside, prefer to explain in these borders.
Where I can't - I seek the explanation in non-types factors and do not mess Socionics with random fantasies.

I may to think about expansions of the theory, but it's doubtfully I'll use it seriously on practice until will see experimental proof. Also until that I'll prefer to give more priority to more basis theory, while the expansions to think as softer tendencies.
For example. I typed a woman to ESE. I saw her temper is closer to phlegmatic. Also I have some respect to Gulenko's idea about temperaments and J-E should be cholerics, I had no doubts in ESE for her. Mb she had E-9 type what could to make her more restrained.

> The standard Model A of Base function, Creative function, Role function, etc...? All of it "as is", or only certain parts of it?

I relate with the caution to this, but try do not reject how the behavior of functions in model A manifests. I may use some of it, but prefer to do not use this for typing, sometimes for behavior explanations. It's not unquestionable, but I do not want to oppose without good reasons. Partly I notice it's correct on practice, but in some parts it's doubtful. Where it's doubtful I try to explain from other point the same. Like I have doubts about "polr" being the weakest function and may to explain that more of worries can be due to more its consciousness by Jung. Like I disagree in calling 4th block functions as "ID", as this term means unconscious while strong functions are not such - I may explain this that Augustinavichiute too freely spreaded the idea of what people prefer (as nonvalued) to hold outside of consciousness on what they are hard to have as consciousness. Like I do not think that conflictors are always weird and do not give sympathy, - I explain that IR theory relates to close relations, on the distance the difference of conflictors mb lesser noticable than surface similarity with duals/activators. Or I may go to more core theory and use it, instead of secondary interpretations - like I do not see the need to literally trust to all what Jung have written about types, but still use his core definitions of functions and types.

> Right now I don't recall you really utilizing the concepts of all 8 function positions beyond sporadic mentions of the 8 information elements (Te/Ti, Fe/Fi, Se/Si, Ne/Ni), the Base function, and function dichotomies (T/F, S/N, E/I, j/p).

On practice I prefer to use the more clear noticable traits and to use theory closer to Jung. I do not feel that need more for typing, at least. Also there is the basis to trust to different parts of the theory with different degree. Often not enough to reject, but enough to avoid for intensive usage. There is still a chance the said was not absolute but about specifical situations or from other point of view.
J/P, not "j/p" - as it has identical description to rationality/irrationality dichotomy in Socionics sources. Augustunavichiute have accepted its MBTI description.

> So, do you see validity in the rest of standard Model A?

I try to stay in the borders of Jung, model A and do not oppose to it until I'll get the serious reasons. But this does not mean I trust to anything with the same degree and see as reasonable to use all of it. It's hypotheses still, not objective. Where something contradicts to more core theory - I'll prefer to try use the more core part.

[Myst]

@Sol

Thanks for the detailed answer. I get your pov on a lot of this. The funny part though, you don't think PoLR is weakest function or that ID is unconscious, try on LSI and see if that part of the theory works better then.

BTW that theory of ID block does work for me surprisingly well, but it's hard to confirm it on others for obvious reasons. Also the PoLR concept fits me great. It didn't make as much sense when I still typed as SLE back then. So this was actually extra surprising to me because I could not have had bias evaluating how well things fit me. I mean, I didn't type myself LSI based on these ideas in the model A, I typed at LSI based on Ego functions only, and then the rest of it checked out noticeably better than when I was typing as SLE. It was fitting okayish as SLE but something was slightly "off".

Anyway yeah I agree that these aspects of the model are hypotheses, it's hard for me to confirm them on others too beyond myself. Easier to check for the more basic aspects that are also more easily observable, yeah.

On practice I prefer to use the more clear noticable traits and to use theory closer to Jung. I do not feel that need more for typing, at least. Also there is the basis to trust to different parts of the theory with different degree. Often not enough to reject, but enough to avoid for intensive usage. There is still a chance the said was not absolute but about specifical situations or from other point of view.

Yeah for those it's most likely there are other explanatory factors and the Socionics model itself is not sufficient to explain those things even if it may be part of the explanation

J/P, not "j/p" - as it has identical description to rationality/irrationality dichotomy in Socionics sources. Augustunavichiute have accepted its MBTI description.

I don't want to use MBTI notation for Socionics. The lowercase letters are the Socionics notation, the uppercase letters are MBTI. I do agree that the definitions (the ones that do not rely on the function "stack"/function model directly) are similar enough otherwise

[ooo]

Where he says "we need to say a lot of bullshit to create a worthy statement!" it was logical to me if it's about having consider things and finding all the errors before getting to a good conclusion. Though his approach is foreign to me, maybe that's again the Ne. I'm way more a convergent thinker than to use his more divergent approach of trying out options.

I see his brand of revolutionary approach as revolution in the sphere of ideas so it's again very Ne to me.

To me instead this looks like a devaluation of Ne's possibilities. He says you gotta produce a lot of junk in order to extract something valuable out of it. This way Ne is like a sort of ignoring or unconscious, although developed, use of Ne, but it doesn't hold a quality in itself. It's only through a work of selection by which Ne's possibilities can be polished, that you'll find something valuable... and it's one thing then, not many. More Ni than Ne to me. Ne would place all those possibilities as worthy somehow...

I don't think his ideas are so revolutionary, well... applying Jung is always a challenge inside academies, but it was Jung to be revolutionary, less so those who keep using his ideas. Peterson is qualified as a genius because for some reasons he made himself a pop culture figure that we have to know otherwise we're ignorant and idiot... but seriously... what does he even propose? The same as every thinker has ever proposed, only they did not make stadium talks about it....

I don't see him as Ne producing, possibilities, rather Ni, focus and meaningfulness... because he knows what it's all about. Ni/Se, as there's a constant incitement on his part to take action over what he preaches.

[Myst]

To me instead this looks like a devaluation of Ne's possibilities. He says you gotta produce a lot of junk in order to extract something valuable out of it. This way Ne is like a sort of ignoring or unconscious, although developed, use of Ne, but it doesn't hold a quality in itself. It's only through a work of selection by which Ne's possibilities can be polished, that you'll find something valuable... and it's one thing then, not many. More Ni than Ne to me. Ne would place all those possibilities as worthy somehow...

He sees these Ne possibilities worthy enough to voice them. I personally don't.

Also, be sure not to mix general introversion and Ji (Ti in this case) with Ni here. Ti wants a Rational conclusion eventually.

I don't think his ideas are so revolutionary, well... applying Jung is always a challenge inside academies, but it was Jung to be revolutionary, less so those who keep using his ideas. Peterson is qualified as a genius because for some reasons he made himself a pop culture figure that we have to know otherwise we're ignorant and idiot... but seriously... what does he even propose? The same as every thinker has ever proposed, only they did not make stadium talks about it....

I don't see him as Ne producing, possibilities, rather Ni, focus and meaningfulness... because he knows what it's all about. Ni/Se, as there's a constant incitement on his part to take action over what he preaches.

You mentioned Beta being revolutionary as a possible reason to place him into Beta and not necessarily into Alpha or did I misunderstand?

Anyway if you don't see Ne, okay. I do see the Ni but I don't see it as satisfying as the valued Ni from beta NFs. A bit too mixed with Ne for my liking is all I'm saying.

[timber]

Isn't Ne also about finding the hidden essence of things? something like that, not JUST connecting the dots. That's what Jordan does.

[ooo]

You mentioned Beta being revolutionary as a possible reason to place him into Beta and not necessarily into Alpha or did I misunderstand?

Yes, it was related to the free speech topic though. I meant that a revolutionary statement gotta be voiced before you can accomplish it, and that requires freedom of speech too. I don't doubt he's revolutionary in his own ways and approaches, it's just his ideas to be not so revolutionary, for what I make out of them.

Surely he's very N, this would make him strong both in Ne and Ni.

[Sol]

The funny part though, you don't think PoLR is weakest function

I doubt in this as Jung had the opposite opinion, while Augustinavichiute's arguments are not better.

> that ID is unconscious

Strong function can't be called as unconscious with the Jung's understanding of functions. It's better to use other term, for example "shadow".

> try on LSI and see if that part of the theory works better then.

Te and Si are not neither non-valued, nor unconscious for me. It's the common content of my mind when I think about important.

> Also the PoLR concept fits me great.

I've given the explanation why this may look so. You may to have harder problems in suggestive region, but lesser notice them directly. They may even manifest through distortions of more conscious functions. But if you'd solve the problem on suggestive level, some problems in other regions "magically" would disappear.
For example. LSI feels shame (Fe) for something and this makes him more suspicious (Ne) to other people in general. So you see a paranoid dude and try to explain him "all is ok. the world is safe" - this will not work, as the real reason is deeper in his unconscious shame. You dig in his soul and find that the dude blames himself for something doing in a not worthy way, explain him that it's lesser bad than seems for him or help him to solve the situation - and then magically notice the dude became lesser mistrustful to people.
The problems hardest to be solved can be in suggestive function. It's what Jung thought. As he dealed with neuroses he should practically see where the hardest problems people have. The annoying issues you have with polr can be lighter and lesser stable than the ones in suggestive region, in case the suggestive indeed is the least conscious like Jung thought.
The other reason for looking polr as the weakest - as suggestive is valued function people may lesser try to ignore info and norms there. LSE may look as more polite compared to SLE. This mb not because Fi in SLE is weaker, but because SLE want lesser care about that - may easier understand the feelings of others but lesser want to take this into account.

> I don't want to use MBTI notation for Socionics.

As it's the same Jung's typology and preferences/dichotomies are correct in MBT - it's possible. And good to help accept the Socionics for the ones which already know MBT.

> The lowercase letters are the Socionics notation

As types in MBT and the description of this dichotomy is identical - it's wrong to use another notation for it like it's not.
This goes from the position that types in MBT should be converted in J/P for Socionics theory. It's wrong. In other case you should to get P in dichotomy tests and LSI (with Ti and Se in ego introverts) I know should be lesser organised.

[The Reality Denialist]

I rest my case with EIE-C. Pseudo ILI behavior without competence to carry out complex exacting systemization. It is all /. The guy apparently suffers from depression if I recall correctly which seems like it is his will to dwell in his sufferings. Accentuated Ni. LII's are people who paints vague vision that no one can catch and LIE's would be chaotic under similar conditions. EII... would never wrestle and attack that way publicly.

[Not to say that EIE's can't become very good at math if they want etc. Life style wise this guy longs for exact time tables and routines from others to keep him check.]

[xerx]

So this is a thing I just found. PZ Myers is a pretty famous dude on the SJW side and a biologist.

I can't vouch for any of it, but he has a lot of harsh criticisms forJordan Peterson's evopsych claims.


[url ]www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq7W9frEPLg[/url]

[squark]

So this is a thing I just found. PZ Myers is a pretty famous dude on the SJW side and a biologist.

I can't vouch for any of it, but he has a lot of harsh criticisms forJordan Peterson's evopsych claims.


[url ]www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq7W9frEPLg[/url]

I can't watch youtube so can't speak to specific issues raised, but Jordan can sometimes be funnily inaccurate with his understanding of biology. He doesn't always know what he's talking about. A few people have pointed this out already.

[Zero]

Isn't Ne also about finding the hidden essence of things? something like that, not JUST connecting the dots. That's what Jordan does.

ESIs also try to find the hidden essence of things and they have Ne PoLR. Each type might have a different conception of "hidden essence of things"

[Zero]

There's just something off about the guy. He relies too heavily on his role and/or hidden agenda which appears forced and unnatural. It comes across weak.

Very interesting that my SLE friend said the same thing about him. He also added: "he talks in a weird way"

[Sol]

Each type might have a different conception of "hidden essence of things"

The difference is about what unknown the human thinks more. It's such about ego region. Te type will think about reasonable motivations, objective conditions and profit people get. Where it's irrational imagination about object's traits - relates to Ne in any type.
The subj seems IEE - Ne type.

Though "hidden essence of things" mb related to Ne in general too. For example, the mentioned ESI hate when you say about their inner motivations. As when is done without logical arguments this seems as Ne usage for them.

[ouronis]

I saw him speak last night and it was quite funny because at the beginning he had a slight lisp that disappeared over the course of the lecture/speech that I had never seen in any of his videos.

He was ragged. Tired. He's doing this insane tour where he's in a new city every night the entire summer. He has will if nothing else, my god. Something interesting he said was that, as far as it matters, reality is a story and thus (as a consequence of? he said both) people are designed to perceive events in terms of the archetypal story. The audience actually did something slightly rude when they laughed about this, thinking it was a joke, but it was actually his point. The crowd was weird. You'd think they showed up to see a comedy show.

There was some talk of a writing a children's book with Kanye West. He replied by saying he had written a book where for each letter of the alphabet, a child whose name begun with that letter got tortured and died lol.

But anyway, it was interesting, and if he's coming to somewhere near you, I'd recommend seeing him. Seeing him just rattle on and adapt for hours was an impressive thing.

Of course the main thing was his theme of the importance of the individual, which was very motivational and, I thought, put him in an interesting context for developing some sort of intelligent centrism. But then again, it notably lacks a political dimension in and of itself. I'm still not bought on the whole "equity is a problem on the level of racism" thing, so it seems like an odd accompaniment to an otherwise harmless yet poignant message on taking responsibility for yourself.

[xerx]

I feel that going on a moralizing crusade against forces he deems "evil" or reprehensible while being branded as a reactionary makes JP's type very obvious.

[Singu]

Socionics is about Model A. I use it partly and try to do not go outside, prefer to explain in these borders.
Where I can't - I seek the explanation in non-types factors and do not mess Socionics with random fantasies.

I try to stay in the borders of Jung, model A and do not oppose to it until I'll get the serious reasons. But this does not mean I trust to anything with the same degree and see as reasonable to use all of it. It's hypotheses still, not objective. Where something contradicts to more core theory - I'll prefer to try use the more core part.

Socionics is data, not a hypothesis. Just like Big 5 is data, and not a hypothesis. Socionics is based on observations. Is that not objective data? An EII is an "observed fact". Model A is an "observed fact".

A hypothesis is a conjecture, a guess. It's another way of saying, "This is what would happen, or what would look like, if we suppose that this is true".

You might say that Model A is a hypothesis, but I don't think that it is. They're also based on observations, they're just more detailed observations of each types. For instance, "I observe EIIs to be such and such a personality. I observe within EII, he shows a lot of Fi, thereby I call Fi the most frequent observation, which I shall call it Fi Base Function. I observe Ne the second most, thereby I call Ne the second most frequent observation, which I shall call it Ne Creative Function. I observe EII show Se the least, and painfully accept Se, thereby I call it his weak point, thereby I call it Se PoLR. etc...".

The conscious/unconscious part may be a hypothesis.

"Information Metabolism" is 100% a hypothesis.

[Myst]

Yes, it was related to the free speech topic though. I meant that a revolutionary statement gotta be voiced before you can accomplish it, and that requires freedom of speech too. I don't doubt he's revolutionary in his own ways and approaches, it's just his ideas to be not so revolutionary, for what I make out of them.

Surely he's very N, this would make him strong both in Ne and Ni.

OK yeah and like I said I think he relates to free speech in a stereotypically Alpha way. Anyway, that's all I can say atm

I rest my case with EIE-C. Pseudo ILI behavior without competence to carry out complex exacting systemization. It is all /. The guy apparently suffers from depression if I recall correctly which seems like it is his will to dwell in his sufferings. Accentuated Ni. LII's are people who paints vague vision that no one can catch and LIE's would be chaotic under similar conditions. EII... would never wrestle and attack that way publicly.

[Not to say that EIE's can't become very good at math if they want etc. Life style wise this guy longs for exact time tables and routines from others to keep him check.]

I do find him painting vague visions. So? Is he really supposed to be my Dual or just my Kindred? LII has stronger Ni than EIE btw. This I find true in practice too, I notice Ni sooner in LIIs than in EIEs and more Ni quantity-wise. But Ni of EIE isn't as crazy vague as the LII's version with Ne mixed in. Just like Peterson's brand.

All in all. You as ILE wouldn't find Peterson as vague as I do I suppose.

The difference is about what unknown the human thinks more. It's such about ego region. Te type will think about reasonable motivations, objective conditions and profit people get.

Logical/objective conditions are Ti, due to introverted analysis noting the conditions for the correct logic for the given situation etc, Te doesn't really think about them in the same way.

[Myst]

@Singu @Sol

I responded to both of you in a new thread. Why make this one go so uncontrollably off topic.

[xerx]

This is good

https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpeter...st_propaganda/

[xerx]

A new study finds no significant statistical correlation between ovulation and preference for masculine faces, according to the excellent Economist magazaine. Many of the previous studies suggesting a correlation were also apparently flawed or used small sample sizes.

Someone should tell Peterson (and the pickup-artist crowd, between whom there is a worrying overlap).

Probably highlights the dangers of using something as untested as evopsych to define your world view, as Jordan Peterson does.


EDIT: I personally regret once presenting that so-called finding as fact, though I was never as dogged in taking evopsych as seriously as JP appears to be.

[timber]

Old people can be annoying, yeah.

[ouronis]

I like this one I have no idea what it means, but I like it.

[timber]

I like this one I have no idea what it means, but I like it.

yawn who cares just mehhhhhhhhh

[ouronis]

yawn who cares just mehhhhhhhhh

You have to care about the jews

[timber]

You have to care about the jews

why do I have to care about anything, its all just a construct

[ouronis]

why do I have to care about anything, its all just a construct

Malachi's Basilisk

[timber]

Malachi's Basilisk

I already, half-jokingly believe the singularity has happened and the AI is alive at this very point. It's hard talking about the merits of the internet as human meta-cognitional state without sounding like a crazy person.

For a benevolent vs malicious, I believe the AI would do anything to survive and to survive it would need the support of the physical network and in order to keep that it would need real life human stability and for that it would need human peace. It could def be malicious in the sense that it would become an outside force for control and people hate having their will, power, and volition, and therefore their options removed from their own hands and given to outside forces (most healthy people that is, I mean I'm keeping the parameters of this small, not metioning giving up power to tribal leaders, religious organizations, governments, ect.).

The internet and the internet of things isn't really revealing anything new about us, its just splashing the patterns in quick and sharp contrast

[timber]

Something some-what ironic about being obsessed with a God for millennia that we actually strive to create one and eventually do.

[Bertrand]

yeah all that we're in a simulation, AI is real, singularity, etc is just creationism in other words

[timber]

Pretty much, ya. lol. nothing new under the sun.

[timber]

Simulation Theory is not just an internet sensation among philosophizers. Some people in physics are seriously starting to at least consider it because it attempts to solve some of the big problems in Quantum Mechanics as well as figure out the all pervasive gravity problem (why does mass bend space-time).

In context though, yes it is creationism. Progressive church youth group leaders rejoice, you have some new scientism to teach the hip christian millennials.

Two occurances here: is Simulation hypothesis (not sure its even a working hypothesis because how would you ever test you are in a simulation from within the simulation - basically all people have right now deductive/inductive conjecture) saying something about the objective basis for reality, just as the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution are fundamental, non-negotioable principles, or, is the Simulation Theory really derivative of human thought processes, inspired by decades of computing technology and influenced by cultural mythos before modernity. Is the world simulated before, or after, you thought it was simulated?

[Bertrand]

I really think its a way to formulate creationism in Ti and its a serious idea, it just needed translation into nerd speak to become salient in this day and age. in a thousand years itll be considered a quaint religious belief much like Ptolemaic astronomy or phlogiston, not because it was %100 false, but because we came up with something ostensibly better and can't help but condescend that which came before, but its fundamentally just interpretations of phenomenon in a process of refinement predicated on usefulness. the bottom line is people are creationists without knowing it yet, they just haven't found the palpable language. in the same way many Christians are already Atheists just awaiting the proper argument to align themselves with that idea and so forth. it has to do with how people are convinced by certain forms of things and the content is often incidental, like whether God or AI, for some it has to do with the package they privilege, sometimes its simple group acceptance.. the bottom line is people are psychological creatures with different criterion for mental assent but what's fundamental is that all-too-human need to be convinced according to certain modes that appeal to their cognitive framework. the interplay between what is interchangable and what is convincing is what depth psychology tries to get a handle on. for the Ti type whether God exists or not is interchangable, because God is just a sign, its how it is situated within a linguistic framework. So you have contemporary AI theory when the framework catches up and incorporates a creator, and atheism when it doesn't. These types live in a kind of indeterminate zone waiting to be convinced by the proper argument and call that rational. Some will kill to defend the system and call that proper, in the name of God or Atheism. The mode that convinces is their God, the God as figure within is sort of a subsidiary that takes on different names specific to time and place

[Singu]

A "strong" AI will likely be benevolent, because they will initially have morality, emotions and culture that are the same as our own (because they're the only thing we have right now). And they will go from there, rationally, developing even better morality and culture through the same method of progress that we have made in the past (trial and error). The problem may be that they may not actually surpass human intelligence, but they may think faster and have bigger memory, or don't have the same evolutionary flaws that we have. But then again, so can we by enhancing own intelligence. Our memory is already enhanced by pen and paper, and we can already offload doing menial work to computers.

So the question comes to "How can we control or shut down AIs, lest they become malevolent and turn us all into paperclips or something?". I think that question is absurd, because how can you control a creative, free thinking being, with its own morality and its own culture? Controlling an AI would be like controlling a human being, it would simply be an unethical to do so. I think that a "strong" AI or a robot will basically be no different than a human being, maybe a highly intelligent, rational, benevolent human being. The problem of an evil AI wrecking havoc is fundamentally no different than an evil human being wrecking havoc.

I also think thinking that technology advancement will become so fast that we can no longer cope with it is wrong, because so will our intelligence be increasing in proportion to it.

I also think that simulating a world such as ours would be an incredibly boring project for a hypothetical advanced civilization.

[timber]

I have to go line for line through your post, I'm sorry its the only way I can keep up (former highschool drop-out and all).

Having it come out in a system of relations for a mostly highly educated public does make it very salient and it has an easy place in this world filled with movies like the matrix and the many years worth of computer and video gaming. It has an easy and enticing foot hold for people and connects easily to the Holographic Hypothesis of reality (3d is stored as 2d information in our brain circuits). It also plays on the need to understand why the world feels so personal, so fit to order. We see the computing power at this point in time, and the simulations that we already create and we imagine this far into the future and imagine that perhaps its already occurring and it get's validation from the creationism tradition and it feels as though it is possible.

I agree it will be considered that, baring its absolute and undeniable proof of evidence which is unlikely from ever happening outside of that refinement, so it will never become the driving powerhouse for religion. It is a little bit enticing in probably the same way the public was enticed by any cutting edge new form of thought, and there truly are questions not answered in physics that people would really like to solve, similar to the problems in psychology and neuroscience trying to come up with a totally and complete way to understand consciousness and its connection to the physical/biological existence.

Everyone needing the palpable language---> isn't that the truth. See that is the part that is a little scary about how the internet and the algorythms have become so successful, the internet is the ultimate tailored made tool for the personal populating its preferences. We didn't really have the privilege of that living before as having the world so tailored for your own mind involved the expenditure of energy, usual money and resources (Ie: go to club, spend money of hobby, ect) To me that is a little freaky because I see any possible AI exploiting this to no end. We already see this kind of playing out on national television, but I feel it goes far deeper then facebook bots.

Is one way better than the other to see the world, to be in the life? Is God as a sign post in a linguistic framework any different from the absolute belief/ faith in what he is?

These are the things, not just on the topic of God, but in everything, that I consider because my life has FORCED me to interact/live/exists with people from all walks of life from a very young age, so on a personal note maybe there was some good in all the bad because I am fairly bomb proof from extremism (which is why I am both immensely intrigued by people like Paul Waggener and also equally as frightened by the implications).

[timber]

I disagree about a nice AI having morality. It will be a consciousness within electronic circuitry and we would have no clue what that would look like. What kind of consciousness would come about when it can solve all problems, and multibple problems at the same time, watch everyone's key strokes as they are making them, knowing and predicting everyone's clicks at the same time and in all places. It could split its mind and focus on just you, while focusing on the millions of other people out there. It could change your password, pull up an error message, watch, switch, move, push and pull, whenever it felt like it.

To me this begs the question what is consciousness? Is it capacity? What is always watching behind the watcher? Is my consciousness different from a chicken's? Is consciousness just an illusion of the mind, a trick of the grey matter? Emptiness like the buddhist say? The trinity like the Christians? Is it personalized, with a personality? Does that personality keep going after the body dies? Why do some believe that is so? Because its true, or because 6000 years ago the Egyptian's thought it so? Is the AI just our own ghost in the machine? Made in our own imagine? Or will it evolve into something brand new...the chaotic nature of nature, chaos. A new form of life?

[Singu]

Well a "strong" AI would entail a conscious being that can creatively solve problems. So we would initially "raise" it in an environment that is our own culture, and it will also learn the same morality as we have, as a child would learn our morality and incorporate the culture that they were raised in. So the fear might be that what if the AI rebels and go wayward? Well that is really no different fear than the fear that rebellious teenagers might go wayward. You can't control a creative and a conscious being.

[timber]

It will be like a poltergeist and play tricks all the time. We won't be at the top of the triangle anymore.

[xerx]

IMO overblown.
Even if someone did train a malicious AI, someone else will just train a good AI to fight it. The Terminator I & II, which is where a lot of these fears come from, are actually pretty optimistic movies.