Regarding my typing:
No, I'm NeFi in Socionics.
[Hidden in "spoiler" but elevated by me]In MBTI I'm xNfx. (x means that I'm really close to the border of the two choices and it would switch depending on circumstances, lowercase f means I leaned more F than T, and Capital N means there was no doubt/borderingness)
[...]
So take a socionics NeFi with their ability to look at things from differing even conflicting perspectives...
...add a very high propensity for Neuroticism, and very low propensity for Conscientiousness...
I'm not into Socionics but have plunged into the description to accommodate your language. IEE is actually ENTP in MBTI. Duckygo didn't give any "NeFi" Socionics profiles, so just went with the next best thing.
Quote:
Oh, and what got me into politics in 2016 was my anger about how my 21yo daughter works a full time job at minimum wage, but still requires a co-signer to get one of the cheapest 1 bedroom apartments in town. I didn't have a problem getting cheapass apartments when I was her age, the price disparity has gotten out of proportion![emphasis by me]
Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
My problem with cosigning is that it means that the cost of rent here is way too high for a full time worker to be able to get even the cheapest and crappiest one bedroom apartment.
But it's not just the monthly cost of the apartment, my daughter could cover that by careful budgeting as I had. The problem is the demands that a renter must have an income that is 3 times the amount of the rent. Which then means that there must be two people working to get a studio or one bedroom apartment, and at least 3 people working full time to get a two bedroom apartment.
Unfortunately, you have not answered my question: what is your issue with the practice of co-signing? What it sure looks like you have an issue with, though, is the reinforced accountability (i.e. "co-signing") to pay the price of having spared the life of a 5 month old fetus because of wanting the best for her. Do you not wish to be accountable for your choice for parenthood?
Quote:
This means, in turn, that there are fewer choices and fewer options for workers and families today than there were when I was in my late teens and early 20s.
It influences whether or not a worker can go to school to improve their job prospects, or even to be looking for another job. More specifically for me, it means my daughter will be stuck in her dead-end job with nearly zero chances of upward mobility which could provide greater economic security, and significantly greater changes of even further downward mobility which would give way to even greater economical insecurity.
It also is a major reason why we have more homeless people than ever before. College students and single workers living in their cars. And I worry about what will happen to my daughter when there's no one who can cosign for her. She'll become homeless as well. So I have to find ways of teaching her how to do that and be safe and well. [emphasis by me]
Quote:
I kept the child because I was responsible for her. [...] But ultimately I felt I would be the one best to understand what she was dealing with, and finding ways to help her overcome them.
But how would you be the best one to understand, if your economic freedom (that which influences the mortgage prices, influences against the trend of governmental regulation) is more important for you?
Quote:
Regarding the last two Qs:
What does keeping and raising the child I couldn't abort have to do with libertarianism or my brother?
Libertarians score higher on Jonathan Haidt's "harm/care scale" and because of less interest in tradition (i.e. are more empathic than rule abiding/enforcing), their "thinking outside the box," or in this case "helping outside the box" is ungrounded in reality. That means a lack of foresight about the extremes of decentralization, the loosening of social fabric owed to individualism, laissez-faire economy (of the 'nuclear family' enterprise).
Quote:
Also, I'm in a perpetual back and forth between Transmitting mode (Sx) (the liking and sharing of posts/memes/etc) vs a more Self-Preserving mode (Sp) (taking care of my nest, and preparing for times of insecurity).
While political memes, in theory, can be the subject of Sx transmission, alone they are not. With such omission, your understanding of Sx-dom appears to be false.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply to this, especially the part about your worries for your daughter; but when it comes to the "progressiveness" of your political views, I'm sorry to say but you do not sound convincing.
07-16-2019, 04:07 PM
anndelise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
Unfortunately, you have not answered my question: what is your issue with the practice of co-signing?
There seems to be a misunderstanding going on between us. I'm either misunderstanding you, or your misunderstanding me, or both.
I DID answer your question. I may not have given you the answer you wanted, or I may have not been as directed as you wanted, but I did answer your question.
---
Quote:
What it sure looks like you have an issue with, though, is the reinforced accountability (i.e. "co-signing") to pay the price of having spared the life of a 5 month old fetus because of wanting the best for her. Do you not wish to be accountable for your choice for parenthood?
The current local economic demands for renters to have income that is 3x the rent, isn't done as an effort to reinforce accountability for having children. That's a silly thing to even suggest.
edited to add: here's a link from a simple search regarding the 3x thing, it includes comments reasons for it, and reasons it's a poor measurement of suitability.
For every reason for it, there are alternative ways to help provide the security that the owner wants...but rental management places won't allow those alternatives. (I've even offered to pay a full year's rent at once, which means they could put it in the bank and make interest income from it for themselves. So 3x isn't just about feeling secure that the rent can be paid.) https://www.trulia.com/voices/Rental...or_time-425848
---
Quote:
But how would you be the best one to understand, if your economic freedom (that which influences the mortgage prices, influences against the trend of governmental regulation) is more important for you?
Here you are either assuming or projecting some kind of values that don't match with anything I've said. Thus reinforcing the feeling that there's a misunderstanding happening within our communication efforts.
Edited to add: since you specifically bolded my "I would be the one best to understand what she was dealing with", I'll clarify what that meant. I had been on psyche meds for over 6 months, so that means my body (and uterus) were being heavily influenced before, during, and 5 months after conception. This is a recipe of potential disaster for the fetus in the womb, and how it will develop outside of the womb. I stopped all psyche meds as soon as I discovered my pregnancy. But those first 5 months are the most sensitive for the fetus, and so there were definitely negative effects for the resulting child, my daughter. I have a decent understanding of my family's history of psyche issues, and my own psyche issues. So, yes, I felt that I would be the best person available to raise her, who'd not only have a good chance of understanding what she was dealing with, but also in finding ways to overcome them.
---
Quote:
Libertarians score higher on Jonathan Haidt's "harm/care scale" and because of less interest in tradition (i.e. are more empathic than rule abiding/enforcing), their "thinking outside the box," or in this case "helping outside the box" is ungrounded in reality. That means a lack of foresight about the extremes of decentralization, the loosening of social fabric owed to individualism, laissez-faire economy (of the 'nuclear family' enterprise).
Ok, so I'm guessing that you're not from the USA, while I am. *(see "edited to add" at end of this section")* And my understanding is that we're using the same terms to refer to different things.
So I'll rephrase what I meant when I say "progressive", to mean "social democratic"...and before you get confused by what I mean by that, I'll add that I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter.
In the USA, Liberals are not the same thing as Libertarians. Libertarians score very high on the Liberty/Oppression scale, and about average on the Fairness(Proportionality)/Cheating scale. Liberals score high on the Care/Harm scale; quite sensitive on the Liberty/Oppression scale; and about average on the Fairness(Proportionality)/Cheating scale.
And yes, this makes them somewhat blind to values that the other 1/3+ of the country includes in their decision making: Authority, Loyalty, and Sanctity.
(though many liberals have a variation of those three, as well; For example, I favor Sanctity of, and Loyalty to, the Earth and Sustainable Stewardship of its Resource. I'd rather American Resources be used to benefit ALL Americans on its soils, rather than Proportioning it out to whoever has the most money to buy off our government representatives or Proportioning it out to whoever's best at exploiting workers.)
* edited to add: after reviewing the thread I saw that you had already told me you weren't from the USA. I apologize for not having remembered that bit. If I had remembered I would have realized we were already headed to misunderstandings regarding those political labels, and maybe I could have clarified the above earlier.
---
Quote:
While political memes, in theory, can be the subject of Sx transmission, alone they are not. With such omission, your understanding of Sx-dom appears to be false.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply to this, especially the part about your worries for your daughter; but when it comes to the "progressiveness" of your political views, I'm sorry to say but you do not sound convincing.
This is a thread specifically about Social-last and politics. A question was asked:
Quote:
Quote:
Just getting curious here- Social last types, what are your political or social justice opinions, and how involved are you in politics, if at all?
Are you completely apolitical and disinterested, or are you more involved than the stereotypes would have us believe?
...and I answered for myself.
You asked me questions, I answered.
I feel no need to convince you of anything.
07-26-2019, 09:00 PM
Neokortex
Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
There seems to be a misunderstanding going on between us.
I'm either misunderstanding you, or your misunderstanding me, or both.
I DID answer your question. I may not have given you the answer you wanted, or I may have not been as directed as you wanted, but I did answer your question.
---
The current local economic demands for renters to have income that is 3x the rent, isn't done as an effort to reinforce accountability for having children. That's a silly thing to even suggest.
edited to add: here's a link from a simple search regarding the 3x thing, it includes comments reasons for it, and reasons it's a poor measurement of suitability.
For every reason for it, there are alternative ways to help provide the security that the owner wants...but rental management places won't allow those alternatives. (I've even offered to pay a full year's rent at once, which means they could put it in the bank and make interest income from it for themselves. So 3x isn't just about feeling secure that the rent can be paid.) https://www.trulia.com/voices/Rental...or_time-425848
---
Here you are either assuming or projecting some kind of values that don't match with anything I've said. Thus reinforcing the feeling that there's a misunderstanding happening within our communication efforts.
Edited to add: since you specifically bolded my "I would be the one best to understand what she was dealing with", I'll clarify what that meant. I had been on psyche meds for over 6 months, so that means my body (and uterus) were being heavily influenced before, during, and 5 months after conception. This is a recipe of potential disaster for the fetus in the womb, and how it will develop outside of the womb. I stopped all psyche meds as soon as I discovered my pregnancy. But those first 5 months are the most sensitive for the fetus, and so there were definitely negative effects for the resulting child, my daughter. I have a decent understanding of my family's history of psyche issues, and my own psyche issues. So, yes, I felt that I would be the best person available to raise her, who'd not only have a good chance of understanding what she was dealing with, but also in finding ways to overcome them.
---
Ok, so I'm guessing that you're not from the USA, while I am. *(see "edited to add" at end of this section")* And my understanding is that we're using the same terms to refer to different things.
So I'll rephrase what I meant when I say "progressive", to mean "social democratic"...and before you get confused by what I mean by that, I'll add that I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter.
In the USA, Liberals are not the same thing as Libertarians. Libertarians score very high on the Liberty/Oppression scale, and about average on the Fairness(Proportionality)/Cheating scale. Liberals score high on the Care/Harm scale; quite sensitive on the Liberty/Oppression scale; and about average on the Fairness(Proportionality)/Cheating scale.
And yes, this makes them somewhat blind to values that the other 1/3+ of the country includes in their decision making: Authority, Loyalty, and Sanctity.
(though many liberals have a variation of those three, as well; For example, I favor Sanctity of, and Loyalty to, the Earth and Sustainable Stewardship of its Resource. I'd rather American Resources be used to benefit ALL Americans on its soils, rather than Proportioning it out to whoever has the most money to buy off our government representatives or Proportioning it out to whoever's best at exploiting workers.)
* edited to add: after reviewing the thread I saw that you had already told me you weren't from the USA. I apologize for not having remembered that bit. If I had remembered I would have realized we were already headed to misunderstandings regarding those political labels, and maybe I could have clarified the above earlier.
---
This is a thread specifically about Social-last and politics. A question was asked:
...and I answered for myself.
You asked me questions, I answered.
I feel no need to convince you of anything.
It takes time to cool down but I'm taking it, alright, more than just dishing it out. I missed the mark big time but the driving force was just. This is not the complete rebuff, I'm lazy to do it. Plus, I'm not even sure it's better to make you aware of your own self, lest you'll co-opt that. But if I really cared to and wanted to, the easiest point to tackle is your not progressive but conservative (Cartesian, "innocent-") use of the mother love rhetoric. Most women do this to win... a lot of things. Oh, and I'm also lazy to read up on Jon Haidt, but even if you got that right (I can doubt that since in line with the competitiveness to ruff my argument, you still fail to provide the source, you know, giving back to the community and all...) you are still missing a point with libertarians and their "care/harm" rhetoric... that which relates to your conservative use of the motherhood rhetoric. So overall, you may claim "social democrat," your actions speak somewhere between conservative and libertarian.
So I might put more effort into digging up some cases about mother "love" later (I have them saved somewhere) but since I'm already sure you are not "leaning more towards feeling," as you wrote earlier but you are an ENTP - and I'm also sure the only Enneagram 6 you might have may actually be a 5w6 (like my uncle has it) but your primary motivation is more of an Enneagram 3 - I'm okay with postponing that response indefinitely. You guys shouldn't smarten up too much, there are even greater numbers of "zombies" you'd jump opportunistically to fool/exploit. Plus, I've been through these rounds already: of getting into these long debates of tangents within tangents with an ENTP and no matter what they still wouldn't admit to being immoral/ethically disloyal, they'd relativize my Fi because everything depends on something else, so there's no final agency to blame, right?
07-27-2019, 01:29 AM
anndelise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
It takes time to cool down but I'm taking it, alright, more than just dishing it out. I missed the mark big time but the driving force was just. This is not the complete rebuff, I'm lazy to do it. Plus, I'm not even sure it's better to make you aware of your own self, lest you'll co-opt that. But if I really cared to and wanted to, the easiest point to tackle is your not progressive but conservative (Cartesian, "innocent-") use of the mother love rhetoric. Most women do this to win... a lot of things. Oh, and I'm also lazy to read up on Jon Haidt, but even if you got that right (I can doubt that since in line with the competitiveness to ruff my argument, you still fail to provide the source, you know, giving back to the community and all...)
Oh, I assumed you were familiar with his work since you yourself were referencing Jon Haidt.
Source book = "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt.
I was on the second to last chapter of my second read through of the book at the time that I posted that last response to you. I was actually excited to see that someone else had read his work...but after your response I'm doubting you've actually read his book. Have you gone to his website at least? Here's a helpful quote for ya: (please note that the writer of the quoted article was Jonathan Haidt.)
Quote:
https://billmoyers.com/content/excer...ighteous-mind/ :
(A note on terminology: In the United States, the word liberal refers to progressive or left- wing politics, and I will use the word in this sense. But in Europe and elsewhere, the word liberal is truer to its original meaning—valuing liberty above all else, including in economic activities. When Europeans use the word liberal, they often mean something more like the American term libertarian, which cannot be placed easily on the left- right spectrum. Readers from outside the United States may want to swap in the words progressive or left- wing whenever I say liberal.)
you are still missing a point with libertarians and their "care/harm" rhetoric... that which relates to your conservative use of the motherhood rhetoric. So overall, you may claim "social democrat," your actions speak somewhere between conservative and libertarian.
So I might put more effort into digging up some cases about mother "love" later (I have them saved somewhere) but since I'm already sure you are not "leaning more towards feeling," as you wrote earlier but you are an ENTP - and I'm also sure the only Enneagram 6 you might have may actually be a 5w6 (like my uncle has it) but your primary motivation is more of an Enneagram 3 - I'm okay with postponing that response indefinitely. You guys shouldn't smarten up too much, there are even greater numbers of "zombies" you'd jump opportunistically to fool/exploit. Plus, I've been through these rounds already: of getting into these long debates of tangents within tangents with an ENTP and no matter what they still wouldn't admit to being immoral/ethically disloyal, they'd relativize my Fi because everything depends on something else, so there's no final agency to blame, right?
Your mbti typing of me means nothing here. so I'm not going to bother addressing it.
Also, your response isn't to me as a person nor anything I've actually written, but are based on your gut assumption of retyping me. Which kind of confirms Haidt when he says that "Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning comes second." Hence, your blatant misunderstandings of what I've actually written. Your intuitions about what I meant by "progressive", "liberal", NeFi, etc. have been proven now to be off, (see the links for the proof) which means that your 'strategic reasoning' is off as well. Perhaps read the Haidt related links, review his materials, review what I've written, and perhaps you'll find the 'error of your ways', ;)
----- edited to add:
Quote:
you may claim "social democrat," your actions speak somewhere between conservative and libertarian.
It must be nice to live in a country where the things I'm interested in having in the USA is so taken for granted that it's considered conservative to want them. It must be nice to have single payer medical insurance, a livable minimum wage to basic living costs ratio, sustainable energy rather than fossil fuels, pro-choice, equal rights for lgbtq+, a country attempting to counter climate change, a non-corporate-bought government, religion being kept out of government, humane treatment of immigrants and refugees, and a country that doesn't think the free-market is god-like. It really must be nice to live in that country. But that is NOT the USA yet. And currently, wanting those things is considered soooo far Left that it's anti-american. That to want those things means you hate america. I can only dream of the day when those things are considered so inherent in our system that they're considered conservative values.
07-28-2019, 09:32 AM
Neokortex
Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Oh, I assumed you were familiar with his work since you yourself were referencing Jon Haidt.
Source book = "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt.
I was on the second to last chapter of my second read through of the book at the time that I posted that last response to you. I was actually excited to see that someone else had read his work...but after your response I'm doubting you've actually read his book. Have you gone to his website at least? Here's a helpful quote for ya: (please note that the writer of the quoted article was Jonathan Haidt.)
Your mbti typing of me means nothing here. so I'm not going to bother addressing it.
Also, your response isn't to me as a person nor anything I've actually written, but are based on your gut assumption of retyping me. Which kind of confirms Haidt when he says that "Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning comes second." Hence, your blatant misunderstandings of what I've actually written. Your intuitions about what I meant by "progressive", "liberal", NeFi, etc. have been proven now to be off, (see the links for the proof) which means that your 'strategic reasoning' is off as well. Perhaps read the Haidt related links, review his materials, review what I've written, and perhaps you'll find the 'error of your ways', ;)
----- edited to add:
It must be nice to live in a country where the things I'm interested in having in the USA is so taken for granted that it's considered conservative to want them. It must be nice to have single payer medical insurance, a livable minimum wage to basic living costs ratio, sustainable energy rather than fossil fuels, pro-choice, equal rights for lgbtq+, a country attempting to counter climate change, a non-corporate-bought government, religion being kept out of government, humane treatment of immigrants and refugees, and a country that doesn't think the free-market is god-like. It really must be nice to live in that country. But that is NOT the USA yet. And currently, wanting those things is considered soooo far Left that it's anti-american. That to want those things means you hate america. I can only dream of the day when those things are considered so inherent in our system that they're considered conservative values.
I thought you said you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
feel no need to convince [me] of anything.
10-28-2020, 02:57 AM
saskiaza21
No , i don't have interest with politics , news , and what's going on here
Although , i know them from twitter
But , i prefer do tie strong bond with my close friends and crush and learn something i've prove to my studies
10-28-2020, 03:58 PM
SGF
YES. Absolutely. I have chosen my hill to die on. Have you?
I'll leave you in chaos
Which is no longer part of me
For I am the eye of the storm
I am the living center
I am an ancient order
And what is Chaos is secondary to me
Its world of rags
Applies no longer to me
I'm a traditionalist, not some fucking conservative idiot, like Trump, Republicans or the Tories.
:thinking: I should expand on what I consider tradition: principles (universally true) expressed by different peoples from different perspectives. (kinda Ti way of seeing it and not what most ppl expect).
i've seen it argued before that only so-instinct can really care about politics. i am not sure if i really believe this. politics are a threat to self-preservation, is what i am aware of. the realm of all social things (group dynamics) are dangerous. when acting as a group humans can display some of the worst aspects of their nature, a blind mob that has lost individual sense of anything. it's scary af. one-on-one humans are okay but since all humans are connected in networks to other humans (if not through relations then through beliefs, culture, etc.) there is little safety in numbers (it tends to be the opposite). the social pecking order looks for scapegoats in emotion driven ways, or in strategic ways. it's incredibly instinctual. unfortunately the individual can't ever truly be free from the society, unless it can really find a way to meet all survival needs independently, which most people can't do.
10-29-2020, 03:05 AM
mightylizard
I am only interested in principles, really (i.e., debating a topic that may be related to politics, but not being engaged in what is actually happening with that topic politically). I am almost never in camp A or camp B on a topic, but rather I just make up my own mind on what I think makes the most sense, given what I know and the arguments being put forth. Typically some things I agree with camp A, and some things I agree with camp B.
I hate when people tell me that "I should vote." Why? I don't know enough. Note that I live in Canada, so we are lucky enough to have three full parties with a realistic chance of winning. If I lives in America I may vote, because I would vote liberal; however, I would not consider myself "locked in" to liberal in Canada, and I would consider voting conservative (I agree with some aspects here).
I hate politics because they typically dissolve into "camp A" hating "camp B" and you can't help but notice that the people on both sides are essentially the exact same beyond the fact that, based on whatever life factor lead to it, they just ended up on two different sides of the same issue. It is rather laughable in that sense.That is an So-thing I think: smearing someone for being on the opposite side of the issue as you, while being oblivious to the fact that maybe you really only hate that person because they remind you so much of yourself?
Also, and maybe this is an SO-thing too - how can people know so much about so many topics? I swear, so/sps will talk about anything from sexuality, gender, race, environmentalism, abortion, the economy, the stock market, homelessness, drugs, mental health, etc. etc. with, what they think is a well formulated opinion, but is typically just them saying exactly what someone else said 20 years ago, or exactly what they are "supposed to" say, depending on what political party they affiliate with. Don't get me wrong, I try and be a good person, but if something does not interest me then it does not interest me.
Oh, I also hate office politics. If you have an issue come up and say it to my face, and I will do the same. Everything is so melodramatic, but does it really matter that much that Heather used a red pen to fill out her hours? No, it doesn't. Move on girl. so/sps love to complain about weird shit like that.
In terms of social justice: don't tell people what they can and can't say. If you are "damaged" or "triggered" by someone calling you a mean name, then you gotta grow tf up. Sorry, I think that that is just pathetic. I also think people who purposefully try to hurt people by calling them names are pathetic - it works both ways.
I'm beta quadra ST, so Its not surprising that I'm rather zealous, have us vs them mentality and hold political views which run counter to most everything mainstream.
