[VI] Help me type two dweebs and Richard Dawkins

[Cosmic Teapot]

There is already a thread for Richard Dawkins* but I would like to hear some opinions about two YouTubers who seem to have similar facial features.
I meet people like that all the time but can't come up with a fitting type. For Cosmic Sceptic I thought maybe LII or LSI but Tessa Violet seems to more extroverted and socially adept.
Could they all be LII / LSI. What am I missing?
@thehotelambush @Chae





Members who are here to tell me that VI is garbage are better off watching cat videos btw.

*http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ichard-Dawkins
For clarity I have nothing against them. I came across the word "dweeb" and it sounds kinda cute

[Bertrand]

the first guys argument is something like, determinism precedes wants, therefore free will if defined as a product of wants, is really an illusion because it originates in determinism and only feels free as it passes through the experiential "want" stage. i.e.: mechanistic process -> desire -> feeling of free will -> choice in accordance with desire = choice in accordance with mechanistic processes. In essence though it organizes the entire argument and its most axiom in accordance with mechanistic processes being a priori true, which is some form of Ti Ne ego. its hard to tell based on just that video whether its LII or ILE, I lean ILE for the fact that he made the video in the first place, because generally ILE likes to evangelize, provoke, debate, etc whereas LII can keep it to themselves. if you look at the the argument for what it is it essentially begs the question on whether free will exists by defining it out of existence as a consequence of the assumption that everything in the world is mechanistic. of course if you assume that, free will doesn't exist. the second you try to comprehend free will in terms of mechanistic processes its no longer free will. free will has to be a starting point for it to be meaningful

[Singu]

Things like determinism and free will can be explained simply by things like Ti. Makes perfect sense.

[Tallmo]

Dawkins = ILE

[The Reality Denialist]

Nah, Dawkins seems to be very rational + I have seen so many videos of him that I'm even quite sure of strong emotivist trait. I think LIE, LII or lesser possibility of LSE.

Tessa is comfort sensing valuing extravert? Maybe.

[ooo]

2 guys probably LII, the girl is probably SEE

[falsehope]

The two guys seem to be ILI.

[Bertrand]

I feel like balzac is more fatalist than determinist, like balzac doesn't try to justify his fatalism because even that he knows is a lost cause, whereas don definitely does because its part of the whole quixote thing

[Singu]

I feel like balzac is more fatalist than determinist, like balzac doesn't try to justify his fatalism because even that he knows is a lost cause, whereas don definitely does because its part of the whole quixote thing

Being fatalistic is being deterministic.

[WVBRY]

Dawkins is ILE, he is a good example of Causal-Determinist cognition.

That isn't to say everyone who believes free will is an illusion is CD cognition of course, I might watch the vids later but I am not gonna assume anything about their types.

For the record I believe in free will so this will be a test.

[Tigerfadder]

[Tallmo]

Nah, Dawkins seems to be very rational + I have seen so many videos of him that I'm even quite sure of strong emotivist trait. I think LIE, LII or lesser possibility of LSE.

true, I agree LIE is possible

[The Reality Denialist]

I might see why Dawkins could be ILE. His mission just seems bit enforcing. Well, it is just that there are areas in molecular side which are whole lot more convincing to me than visible gradual change or I just appreciate it more.


Process types just tend to prefer non naturalistic wievs.

[Cosmic Teapot]

(1)The only time he talkes about Richard Dawkins is at....nowhere. Nowhere does he talk about Richard Dawkins.


(2)That's a good video but I fail to see how Petersons foggy ideas about Christianity and his absurd views on morality of atheists are of any value concerning Richard Dawkins type. Peterson does comment on Richard Dawkins views sometimes. But not here. I think if Peterson would have spent a minute reflecting what Dawkins main values are about (for example in his book the selfish gene, quote: "...so we can teach people altruism because we are all born serflish" ... selfish in the context of darwinism) he would understand that religion is by no means the fundament of morality.

also here we have an ILE who calls Peterson out on his this beautifully:

Off topic: honestly the idea that people need to fear of a cruel god to be moral sickens me. "I don't murder people because then I'm going to hell." How can poeple like that even sleep. It's a terrible way to live your life. The only thing that is holding these people back from commiting horrible acts is a story they where told since childhood? Sick. Sick. Sick.

[Tigerfadder]

(1)The only time he talkes about Richard Dawkins is at....nowhere. Nowhere does he talk about Richard Dawkins.

4.20

[Cosmic Teapot]

@Troll Nr 007 @Tallmo @Avebury I can see ILE and ...maybe LSE but LIE is just impossible. Look at Elon Musk or Richard Faynman. Those two are LIE. Dawkins on the other hand is interested in society. Especially in his book "the selfish gene". His ideas of society are more in common with those of LII:

“Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.”

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

considers that everything in this world must be logical, and, therefore - just and fair. contemplates on the topic of creation of a fair society - deeply democratic - full freedom in choosing how to act and behave.

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...Stratiyevskaya


Also typing Tessa as F without much comment seems off to me

[Cosmic Teapot]

4.20

Ok I got it now. It's still irrelevant to the thread sorry (unless you can add your own arguments make your viewpoint clear to me)

[Tigerfadder]

Ok I got it now. It's still irrelevant to the thread sorry (unless you can add your own arguments make your viewpoint clear to me)

Maybe but if we listen to how Jordan think of the topic and how Dawkins think of the topic we might say that they inhibit different cognitive styles and thus not share type. But thats about it I think.

[Cosmic Teapot]

Maybe but if we listen to how Jordan think of the topic and how Dawkins think of the topic we might say that they inhibit different cognitive styles and thus not share type. But thats about it I think.

A deductive approach. I should've noticed that in your first post. It's a good idea. Ty

[timber]

Dawkin's writing is PEAK Ti. When I read The Selfish Gene ten years ago, it was while working at a Provincial Park. I would get stoned, after cleaning the campsites and find a rock or bench and mellow out for a number of hours to that book - it is a challenging read BECAUSE of the Ti. That is NOT Te style writting at all. Te style writing gets to the point ASAP. Dawkins writes a hole chapter on Bee behaviour when finding flowers.

[timber]

Here he is before the whole military atheist shit hit the fan. Same pattern happened with Jordan. Older people just turn miserable, sorry some of you guys don;t know this yet.

[ooo]

Also typing Tessa as F without much comment seems off to me

aha yeah right, I forgot to mention I was just analyzing their physiognomy. Tessa looks like an extrovert (stronger left eye), sensory (mouth bended on the left), feeler (motion of the left eyebrow). I'm not too sure of the order, she could be an ESE too, all the videos seem to focus on Si, and her music is straight out F, anyway I doubt she's an introvert.

Guys looked LII instead, but I can see a point in ILE too.

[timber]

Put it this way, they are the sort of people I would hang out with once in a while. the first guy seems like a great conversation, the girl seems entertaining but slightly to nerdy and high neurotic for longer interactions beyond maybe a Saturday night, or school in the mornings and Dawkins is basically my Uncle. Smart, probably amazing to listen and discuss, but I'm getting he would be annoying when plans and events need to happen RIGHT NOW and we need to move...I belong to the mover and groover class of sociotypes and Dawkins I know would prove to be a stick in the mud for me.

#socionicsscience

[Cosmic Teapot]

Here he is before the whole military atheist shit hit the fan. Same pattern happened with Jordan. Older people just turn miserable, sorry some of you guys don;t know this yet.

aww look at him <3
I have a friend who looks and just like him (but a lot younger) - which is the reason for this thread
I don't know anything about "the whole military atheist shit" do you mean the public discourse on atheism in general?

aha yeah right, I forgot to mention I was just analyzing their physiognomy. Tessa looks like an extrovert (stronger left eye), sensory (mouth bended on the left), feeler (motion of the left eyebrow). I'm not too sure of the order, she could be an ESE too, all the videos seem to focus on Si, and her music is straight out F, anyway I doubt she's an introvert.

Guys looked LII instead, but I can see a point in ILE too.

Thanks I understand what you mean now. From that perspective I can see Tessa as an ESE, too. Sometimes duals look similar to each other.

[ooo]

Dawkins very hot btw :]

[timber]

Yeah the public discourse, happened about a decade ago now.

[Bertrand]

Being fatalistic is being deterministic.

I'm tempted to ignore this since you're asking me to explain things to you again, but I think for the sake of our listeners perhaps there's a useful distinction to be made here...

the two perspectives differ in their psychological charge

fatalism is the sense that time renders all goals, and therefore all goal making illusory

determinism is the idea that things are governed by processes that are mechanistic and knowable

implicit in determinism is the idea that goals can still be achieved, via knowledge of the laws that govern things, i.e.: that progress is possible or at least in principle it is not futile to understand what is going on

essentially the difference between determinism and fatalism is determinism is the ILE view and fatalism is the ILI view of the same thing, namely the universe. one is characterized by +Ne the other -Ni. inasmuch as they're looking at the same thing, i.e.: the topic is the same, they could be said to be the same, but the difference is in precisely the psychological outlook and the charge that accompanies such a difference in outlook. fatalism looks at it with the end in mind, determinism looks at it from the ground up. in essence fatalism is pessimistic and determinism is optimistic. this is the source of so much criticism of determinism, because its looked at essentially a project out to "prove" fatalism, ground up, in the view of the people who see things from the far side already (i.e.: delta types mainly--this is where -Ne comes in). what people involved in illuminating deterministic schemes don't understand is that were they to succeed they would have pulled the rug out from all human endeavors as being foregone conclusions that robs the process of its meaning, reducing everyone involved to mere cogs. fatalism essentially accepts this as being the case up front but without requiring itself to go into all the details (a lot of Agamemnon and the gods revolve around this theme, many ancient Greeks were gamma).

in essence they are the same thing, but from different points of view, however that is precisely what personality is, so in the present context the distinction is meaningful

people that can say "you are not free" with a straight face or even thinking its some form of positive message are determinist alpha types, its a very Fi polr thing with a little dopey Fe sheen on it. balzac is more ironic and sensitive about how he conveys such a message, and he doesn't do it with childlike glee or enthusiasm but with a kind of deep sorrow

the link between the two is nicely captured in the difference between CD and DA cognition as well, they are dual to eachother

[Hope]

I feel like balzac is more fatalist than determinist, like balzac doesn't try to justify his fatalism because even that he knows is a lost cause, whereas don definitely does because its part of the whole quixote thing

Ime Ni is more fatalistic in general. Sometimes it seems like they build huge walls of bricks, thats why they need Se.

[Singu]

I'm tempted to ignore this since you're asking me to explain things to you again, but I think for the sake of our listeners perhaps there's a useful distinction to be made here...

The irony is that you've only managed to say "fatalism is this, determinism is this" "fatalism is ILI and determinism is ILE" (in a really pointlessly long post), but you didn't manage to show or understand any logical connections between them or how they are related to each other.

You really have some troubles with making logical connections between things or conceptually understanding things, I'm afraid. Maybe you're Ti PoLR.

You have an inability to think logically or rationally. That's why you have no idea what you're even agreeing with or disagreeing with.

[Bertrand]

actually every person Sol types ILE there's "determinist" tattooed under their eyelids

[Singu]

Well I would think that some things are mathematically infinite, such as human consciousness or languages, since they have building blocks that can be combined in an infinite amount of ways. Creation of new knowledge is unpredictable, since if you could predict them, then you could attain those knowledge now. So there is determinism in the sense that there are objective physical laws that exist that determine causality. Yet that objective law also states that some things are inherently unpredictable, even in principle, such as the examples I gave in the first sentence.

[Bertrand]

yeah I agree, the first part we call facts, the rest is up to do what we will with it. the deterministic position is that everything can be reduced to facts and their causal relationships, which I think is quixotic to say the least, because under every fact is an infinite amount of interpretations and therefore new facts. the deterministic position is something like an a priori assumption they treat as true for the sake of getting the ball rolling and they don't actually live like they believe, but they slip in and out of whenever they engage in things like scientific projects. in other words they compartmentalize the idea in order to create an artificial model based on an unnatural truth because of what such a method can potentially produce in terms of technology and discovery. then let others more or less pick up the pieces from whatever results, but this makes sense since everyone offloads a portion of the total work to society. the flipside to this is bureaucrats and politicians who make it their business to control how these things are used, but they themselves have little idea how they're developed. in essence the C-D mindset is just a way of divying up reality in order to realize whatever advantages such a perspective confers. problems occur when the mindset oversteps its boundaries and gets into social commentary which is like Dawkins personified, leading to his successor Stalin, and then Gorbachev, and finally Dostoevsky. for every one of these people there's someone who finds their dictates stifling, but there's a progression here from technology to humanism

the idea that dawkins' or any ILE's model is going to supersede this psychological truth is as zany as saying Stalin's bureaucracy is going to be the final word on human self-organization and so forth. i.e.: determinism is as true as the global revolution was and so forth. they're all just half truths they prosecute to the end, but just because the model runs its course doesn't mean the world ends. this is what cracks me up when people get depressed over the heat death of the universe or whatever

you could say in the case of these two Fi and Ne polr hits are when they get jarred out of their model

[Singu]

...I don't think you actually fully understood what I just said.

Anyway, to speak it in Dawkins' terms, our "genes" are deterministic, as in they're nothing more than mechanical algorithms, they're literally "digital bits", like storage in computers. And yet those genes are what create us, a not-so deterministic beings. We are creative, and we are able to come up with new things that have never been thought of before. We can actually explain everything that is around us. We can explain our environments, and figure out how they work. That is why things like science is possible, that is why we are not animals that are mere passive victims of the environment. We are "universal explainers", as in we actually have the ability to explain literally anything in this universe. That is truly amazing. We, which is only a tiny, minuscule part of the universe, actually have the ability to explain everything in the universe, to solve any kind of problems that we would ever face. This is why things like mathematics work so uncannily well in sciences, and why they have universal application. The true miracle is that our universe is allowing this to happen, it's allowing that a part of the universe can explain the entirety of the universe. If it weren't, then science wouldn't be possible. We wouldn't be able to explain anything.

Up to here, this is kind of what Dawkins means by the "selfish gene", and how we can overcome our selfish genes. Our genes determined us, and yet we are not exactly determined by our genes. Something special happened there. There's something special that goes on in our brains.

This is intimately connected to the "universality of computation". The principle of universality of computation states that a physical object like a computer can simulate any kind of physical objects or processes. As this principle is fonded by Alan Turing, this is called "Turing complete". A Turing complete machine can simulate any kind of physical processes, and hence can solve any kind of problems. It's said that computers that we're using right now, and our brains are Turing complete. Well a true Turing complete machine would be a quantum computer, and that would be based on the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle, as Deutsch came up with the principle for a quantum computer.

So anyway, this partial indeterminism seems to be connected to the fact that we are conscious of ourselves, we can actually explain what we're doing. If we were aware that we're being fatalistic, then we can change that. We can understand how it works. I would kind of doubt that things like fatalism is "genetic" or inborn, as I would think that fatalism is software, and not hardware. And we can change our software anytime we want.

[Bertrand]

I think this would translate into socionics speak as "type is changeable", which I don't really have an issue with, except to say its rare and mostly occur on the level of DCNH. maybe base type changing happens. type is after all an interpretation of cognitive functioning. it makes sense to me that inasmuch as genetics determine type it is set, but there is probably room for movement because it may or may not be the case genetics fix it entirely. in any case I don't think there's really any hard limit to what people can do short of someone with no legs being a champion sprinter or some such. sometimes a thing is not in the cards genetically, and that extends to how people's brains work, but to what exact extent is still unknown

I think if people impose a type on someone in order to maliciously limit their possibilities that is a misuse of the system and the typing is likely wrong anyway since it came out of a motivated form of reasoning and is probably inaccurate for that reason anyway. such a thing amounts to a slur, although there is no reason any type should be viewed intrinsically negatively. its like calling someone a ****** or something, its basically meaningless except as an expression of personal dislike originating in the person saying it. this is why at the end of the day only what a person types themselves really matters, but it should be done free of influence that biases the options. ultimately its on the individual to free themselves from the bias though, because everyone is going to have opinions about what a type means to them, so if you outsource your opinion on the value of a type to another person or the crowd it distorts things

when people change their type it more likely reflects a change in self knowledge or understanding of the system, this makes it seem flakey, but its like feeling a pain in your abdomen and thinking its your liver and it ends up being your kidney or something. it always was what it was, it just "changed" based on new information. authorities like gulenko could diagnose type at a higher degree than chance but it still falls on the individual to decide in the same way that until measurements are devised any diagnosis ultimately relies on self reports. you can't blame the doctor if you tell them your foot hurts when its originating in your core or somesuch, which often happens with referred pain and so forth (meaning its not always an intentional misrepresentation, although sometimes it is). if it wasn't for xrays and MRIs and so forth it might not be found and corrected. psychoanalytic therapy is like a nascent form of medicine in that sense. a lot of what goes on in questioning people is digging around for signs that might uncover false positives. failure to dig often results in stereotyping because people simply present their persona, and even if not and they're trying to be honest, they're not always sure what the question even is asking in the first place

[Singu]

It's just the limit of inductivism. Inductivism says that if something has happened in the past, then it will stay the same and continue to happen the same way in the future. There's nothing else to get out of inductivism, other than to make a "summary" or a generalization of observations (funny that Gulenko says that he uses inductive generalization). That's why Big Five limits itself to the very few traits that actually stay relatively stable over time. And even then, there's no guarantee that it will actually stay the same over time, it may change. Its findings are also limited to correlation and not causation. But yes, those traits do apparently stay relatively stable over time.

So if any of the Socionics traits are not stable over time, then they're relatively pointless, as those behaviors will not be predictable indicators of a person. Big Five has already figured out which of the many traits are stable over time. As for personality vs personality traits or temperaments, I would think that personality is socio-cognitive-culturally dependent. Personality is probably something that appears on top of biological temperaments. Basically, if you put a "Socionics type" in a different environment or a cultural context, then they would be acting differently from another cultural context.

The biggest mistake that people make, which is actually the mistake of Socionics, is that they think you can "explain" things with Socionics. But as Socionics is basically just observational data, you can't actually explain data with data. You explain data with a theory. And Socionics is just not in the business of explaining things. You don't explain things with Big Five, you find correlations between the compared data.