Peter Singer
I still need to read his book. Supposedly Animal Liberation was very influential for animal rights, although I can't vouch for its contents yet.
Originally Posted by Logos
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
Interesting. I had never actually seen or heard Peter Singer before I saw this video (thanks for providing it, Ezra). And I didn't imagine that his type would be so obvious. He is clearly an ILI, which means that we can use Peter Singer as a clear example of a famous ILI.
Can we all agree (especially hitta) that Singer really is an ILI?
I think this is a perfect oppurtunity to discuss the differences between some types (especially LIIs, ILIs, and perhaps IEIs) that people here always tend to disagree on. Everyone with a serious interest in understanding the types correctly would not want to miss this chance.
I think that Peter Singer is probably one of the most obvious examples of an ILI there is. At least I can't think of a better ILI prototype at the moment. So, why do people keep silent? Please raise your honest opinions, and don't just disagree but try to pinpoint what you have trouble with if you don't think that Singer is an INTp.
What do Rick think about Singer's type? And what does hitta think? Everyone would probably like to know that, and in any case it is of great importance to this forum to know it.
I claim that Peter Singer, with near 100 % certainty, is an INTp/ILI. Can we agree on this (as many people as possible) and then move on?
I really want to reach a consensus on at least one famous person's type -- and this seems to be the perfect opportunity to do it. Let's act now.
Take a look at one of the videos for just half a minute or so, and see for yourself that Peter Singer is a perfect example of an INTp/ILI. It's so obvious that you don't have to analyze what he says or read anything about his person. By only watching and hearing him in action you immediately just know that he is an ILI.
Phaedrus, you're talking to yourself.
Ask niffweed.
It seems so. But that is irrelevant, because people should take a look anyway -- if they are interested in getting a correct understanding of the types.
Why? He has me on ignore if I am correctly informed.
And what is your opinion on Singer's type, Ezra?
Peter Singer
the conversation in the Walmart thread reminded me of this guy. i'm very fascinated and often ambivalent about what he has to say.
i wanna say LII but that's just a quick & dirty impression.
“Extreme poverty is not only a condition of unsatisfied material needs. It is often accompanied by a degrading state of powerlessness. ”
“If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.”
“Arguments for preservation based on the beauty of wilderness are sometimes treated as if they were of little weight because they are "merely aesthetic". That is a mistake. We go to great lengths to preserve the artistic treasures of earlier human civilisations. It is difficult to imagine any economic gain that we would be prepared to accept as adequate compensation for, for instance, the destruction of the paintings in the Louvre. How should we compare the aesthetic value of wilderness with that of the paintings in the Louvre? Here, perhaps, judgment does become inescapably subjective; so I shall report my own experiences. I have looked at the paintings in the Louvre, and in many of the other great galleries of Europe and the United States. I think I have a reasonable sense of appreciation of the fine arts; yet I have not had, in any museum, experiences that have filled my aesthetic senses in the way that they are filled when I walk in a natural setting and pause to survey the view from a rocky peak overlooking a forested valley, or by a stream tumbling over moss-covered boulders set amongst tall tree-ferns, growing in the shade of the forest canopy, I do not think I am alone in this; for many people, wilderness is the source of the greatest feelings of aesthetic appreciation, rising to an almost mystical intensity.”
“The prescription of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat human beings.”
“In an earlier stage of our development most human groups held to a tribal ethic. Members of the tribe were protected, but people of other tribes could be robbed or killed as one pleased. Gradually the circle of protection expanded, but as recently as 150 years ago we did not include blacks. So African human beings could be captured, shipped to America, and sold. In Australia white settlers regarded Aborigines as a pest and hunted them down, much as kangaroos are hunted down today. Just as we have progressed beyond the blatantly racist ethic of the era of slavery and colonialism, so we must now progress beyond the speciesist ethic of the era of factory farming, of the use of animals as mere research tools, of whaling, seal hunting, kangaroo slaughter, and the destruction of wilderness. We must take the final step in expanding the circle of ethics.”
“Were we incapable of empathy – of putting ourselves in the position of others and seeing that their suffering is like our own – then ethical reasoning would lead nowhere. If emotion without reason is blind, then reason without emotion is impotent.”
“Philosophy ought to question the basic assumptions of the age. Thinking through, critically and carefully, what most of us take for granted is, I believe, the chief task of philosophy, and the task that makes philosophy a worthwhile activity.”
“To give preference to the life of a being simply because that being is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.”
“The assumption that in order to be interested in such matters one must be an "animal-lover" is itself an indication of the absence of the slightest inkling that the moral standards that we apply among human beings might extend to other animals. No one, except a racist concerned to smear his opponents as "******-lovers," would suggest that in order to be concerned about equality for mistreated racial minorities you have to love those minorities, or regard them as cute and cuddly...The portrayal of those who protest against cruelty to animals as sentimental, emotional "animal-lovers" has had the effect of excluding the entire issue of our treatment of nonhumans from serious political and moral discussion. ”
“I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant. For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life? Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments.”
found an old thread where ILI was the popular opinion. ehhhhh.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...7-Peter-Singer
the things that jumped out to me when going through quotes were a tendency to trace things through time and make comparisons (race vs. species etc). playing socionics paint by numbers that would be Ni and Ne so he'd be intuitive.
It's safe to assume at this point that you haven't typed an LII before. I'm dead serious. I have no idea how someone who puts morality above logic can be considered logical, let alone Ti base. In fact, I think most of the logicals you type are feelers. This becomes obvious to me with every thread you post. I have no doubt about that. Unfortunately, I have no interest in him nor his writings, so there is no way for me to type this person beyond a simple impression.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-29-2014 at 01:18 AM.
I disagree on all accounts.
(and no hostility. dats how I argue, don't get offended so soon)
Bold: Odd statement. You probably meant something else. In any case, that wouldn't be my argument.
Enlighten me. You obviously have an idea of what exactly he is basing it on. I don't.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-29-2014 at 01:18 AM.
Honestly, I'd say they're valuational. You cannot logically compare race and species and say that they are equal comparisons. The argument against racism is that each man, each human being is a human being, and so should be treated as one. They have in common their humanity. Humans and animals do not have humanity in common, they are entirely different beings, and to suggest that they are the same (but like different races of humans) is to completely ignore reality. He wants them to be seen as the same, with the same rights, but that doesn't make it so. It's a huge stretch with no logical basis. It's like the common saying "comparing apples and oranges" - the reason that's a saying at all is because it illustrates how lumping things that are very different together and trying to compare them does not work.
i agree with you but my agreement from my perspective feels ethically based. i wouldn't compare animals and humans because it wouldn't feel right. but i wouldn't feel comfortable saying that this is logically so, or that to say so "ignores reality" because to me it just feels like a valuational assessment. whereas with both you and peter singer, on different sides of the spectrum, present your arguments in a way that is more just "and that's that," more explicit, which is what i'm attributing to Ti.
EII would be my second guess though and it would be interesting to see more intelligent arguments that might point me in that direction.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-29-2014 at 01:18 AM.
Ti can deal with morality. just in a different way than Fi. and i don't think i've met a single person in my entire life who didn't hold any values that weren't in some way illogical. are you feeling hostile? your tone is odd. if you want to point out who else you think i've typed wrong we can talk about it. for the record, EII did also cross my mind for singer.
maybe relevant to what Ryan has said, my reaction to a lot of what singer says is, "I guess that makes sense but it just feels wrong." I think he puts forth arguments that have their own kind of logic that's difficult for me to refute. also I don't put a lot of stock in this since intertypes rarely play out so obviously for me, but my feeling towards him of an odd mix of intrigue, admiration, and repulsion seem pretty textbook super ego.
1. what you think is wrong is not what everyone else think is wrong
2. therefore he could very well be an ethical, and your identical
3. you just sound like a traditionalist "I guess this is a fair argument, but it contradicts what I already hold dear to me so it's obviously wrong"
4. lazy thinking at its finest, "he is smart, but he has a weird sense of morality that I cannot accept", therefore not my identical
i don't think you understood me. first of all, i know #1 is true and i take it for granted. the rest just doesn't even make sense to me.
i'm not going to make an effort to go forward with this conversation and try to communicate on your terms because you're being a scrappy little shithead. learn some fucking manners and maybe next time i'll be more amenable. its a shame, because this could have been interesting.
tbh, I'm not interested in arguing with you, I'm glad you are being constructive by sitting out of this conversation
sure I'm tactless but I'm not going out of my way to annoy you
Model A makes the same hypothesis; the only difference is that it pries the individual tendencies apart and denominates it down into further components. So, it's a lot less hassle to say that Ti can deal with morality, when in stupidionics it's analogous to saying Role Fi deals with morality but it is filtered thru Base Ti with influences from both Vulnerable Fe and Ignoring Te. *chokes self*
He does come acrossPoLR and
creative so I'll say either EII or LII. I'm not sure whether he's a logical type or an ethical type and I'd have to read more of his writings to make that judgement. I find his idea to kill handicapped newborns extreme, but in the other hand I can see why he would think that.
I found this excerpt interesting though:
"Singer's work has attracted criticism from other philosophers. Bernard Williams, who was a critic of utilitarianism, said of Singer that he "is always so keen to mortify himself and tell everyone how to live". Williams criticised Singer's ethic by saying that he's "always so damn logical" and thus "leaves out an entire dimension of value". Williams claimed that Singer's utilitarianism is impractical as it's impossible to "make these calculations and comparisons in real life"."
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I'm familiar with the nitty-gritty of defining species, and disagreements re. the classification in specific detail as well as the issue of hybrids. I've also spent many hours in such tedious tasks as counting teeth in rodent skulls to identify one nearly identical species from another, so I have some frustrating hands-on experience as well, but it's still a simple broad classification with the key issue of reproductive viability at the heart of it. In basic terms, nobody is going to confuse a mouse for an elephant, or a human from a dog and while a person can be several races mixed together, there exists no naturally conceived and reproductively viable animal that is several species mixed together. Two species - yes, as though most mules are infertile, sometimes one isn't, and I'm not sure on such things as ligers etc., but certainly not multiple species mixing easily and producing viable offspring who can reproduce with members of any one of the parent species. In other words, species is still, no matter how carefully defined or how far the edges are pressed still a very different concept from race. A race could perhaps under an extreme bottleneck and isolation become a new species, but that group is far more likely to die out due to likelihood of deleterious mutations being passed on in greater numbers within the much smaller population required for speciation to take place. Inbreeding sucks ass for producing a healthy population, while diversity greatly increases odds of survival.
Anyway, yeah, he wasn't going off of biological standards as you said, and was instead making an ethical judgment. That judgment is not based on anything other than his feeling that “To give preference to the life of a being simply because that being is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.” Which is very far from being accurate under whatever terms you choose to look at it.
Oh, cool. What do you do?
Yes, race as a construct is epistemically murkier and obviously more difficult to delineate compared to species. But these class differences b/t race vs. species represent one of degree rather than kind. Given that after many successive generations under the net influence of genetic drift, gene flow, bottlenecking, natural selection, epigenetic interactions, etc etc, any initial bifurcations would become more racially distinctive over time, with some gradually diverging further apart into the eventual emergence of new species. Unless you happen to know of some other viable mechanism in the natural world for inducing speciation that I don't.In basic terms, nobody is going to confuse a mouse for an elephant, or a human from a dog and while a person can be several races mixed together, there exists no naturally conceived and reproductively viable animal that is several species mixed together. Two species - yes, as though most mules are infertile, sometimes one isn't, and I'm not sure on such things as ligers etc., but certainly not multiple species mixing easily and producing viable offspring who can reproduce with members of any one of the parent species. In other words, species is still, no matter how carefully defined or how far the edges are pressed still a very different concept from race. A race could perhaps under an extreme bottleneck and isolation become a new species, but that group is far more likely to die out due to likelihood of deleterious mutations being passed on in greater numbers within the much smaller population required for speciation to take place. Inbreeding sucks ass for producing a healthy population, while diversity greatly increases odds of survival.
I don't know whether that's his actual feeling, or if he's just making a lame contrived rhetorical appeal to feeling—my guess is the latter.Anyway, yeah, he wasn't going off of biological standards as you said, and was instead making an ethical judgment. That judgment is not based on anything other than his feeling that “To give preference to the life of a being simply because that being is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.” Which is very far from being accurate under whatever terms you choose to look at it.
In any event, what I'm really curious about is why an arbitrary classificatory schema or logical framework could or 'should' be considered a better rubric for making sound ethical judgments. Esp. considering that said frameworks likely belie an underpinning of personal feelings and value judgments which aren't the least bit logical.
That was a short-term position working for a mammalogist. I don't do anything like that now.
I disagree that it's only a matter of degree, but I don't think there's anything more to be said about this that we haven't already covered.
Better rubric- not at all. If it's an arbitrary schema then it's meaningless and unlikely to lead to very sound ethical judgments at all. What I see Singer doing is taking personal sentiments and cloaking them in rationalizations and foisting them on others with intention to shame them into agreement. I take issue with the cloaking and shaming, not with his feelings on the subject. People can feel however they want about something - pretending that it's logical though, is imo silly. It's also different than examining the question "What is ethical?"or "What are my values?" and attempting to create a system of values that you consistently follow.
I got 100% on that test. First one I mean, the consistency one.
Having said that I don't really know what is the point here at all.
"Ethics" is a shittier term than "Feeling" for the ethical/feeling functions.
Anyone who is devoid of ethics is probably a socio-path. The Thinking-Feeling dichotomy does not parallel a sociopathic gradient. Thinking types spend far more time and effort philosophizing about ethics than feeling types do. Feeling types have less of an urge to argue ethical principles academically. They practice ethics and their philosophizing tends towards the anecdotal and intuitive. This is the tendency I've found, there are certainly exceptions.
The end is nigh
Indeed. Having feelings (like empathy) does not make a thinker less logic, neither using logic a feeler less ethical. It's the way they see the problem what makes them logic or ethical. Well, statistically, there are always exceptions to rules.
If we want to play the card of considering correlations between these concepts and reality (biological nature), I would say ethical types could have more "direct" communication between emotional centers of the brain and the frontal lobe or any other key region in making decisions. I see logical functions as objective conceptualizators, and ethical ones as subjective conceptualizators. I'm not implying with this that logic conceptualizators are inherently more right (or logic users less emotional), only that they have some kind of negative synergy with emotions, whereas ethical ones have positive synergy with them:
Empathizing-systemizing theory.
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 02-16-2013 at 09:47 AM.
You'll probably find this interesting if you haven't read it before—it dovetails nicely with what you're talking about: Empathy represses analytic thought, and vice versa
Basically, the research suggests that everyone's brain possesses both networks (analytic & empathic), but that these do operate in an XOR manner precluding simultaneous activation—such that it's easy to conceive a typical person having to rapidly alternate between both over the course of a given day per fluctuating situational demands. Meaning that what's typologically regarded as F & T, may neurologically avail itself in terms of an individual's statistical odds for activating one network more than the other.
This is possibly along similarly construed lines as the distinction b/t Implicit vs. Explicit IAs (see post here).I see logical functions as objective conceptualizators, and ethical ones as subjective conceptualizators. I'm not implying with this that logic conceptualizators are inherently more right (or logic users less emotional), only that they have some kind of negative synergy with emotions, whereas ethical ones have positive synergy with them:
Excellent article, thanks.
More or less. Implicit functions, being disconnected from the object, lack reference (relations can be applied anywere, until connection with concrete object cannot be evaluated). They would be subjective from this pow. For ethical functions the reference would be the self (oneself) and equivalent (others), making them subjective, from this pow, when compared with logical ones which weight people in the same way they do will all objects.This is possibly along similarly construed lines as the distinction b/t Implicit vs. Explicit IAs (see post here).
the net sum of functions evens out to the same thing if you take into account only 2, 4 or 8 fxns. since model A traverses thru each function exhaustively, it gets away with assigning 2D traits to each individual IE and having that IE play a specific function in the psyche, so you have Fi playing the part of evaluating ethics and Ti evaluating logical axioms, etc. and each type can embody these traits to a certain limited capacity. the 4-function model is fundamentally different from this but the net sum is the same, i.e. the types remain the same, even if the function definitions vary and functions play a different part in the psyche since you don't traverse thru them exhaustively but selectively. there have been several threads on this, feel free to look them up. or don't. do whatever you want.
either you aren't intelligent enough to accommodate this perspective, or you are too intellectually arrogant to concede. in the case of the former, refamiliarize yourself with Model A and come back when you have something worthwhile to add to this thread. in the case of the latter, fuck off.
Shut the fuck up or say something substantial. You are just viciously nit-picking everyone else with the assumption that your typing of Singer is somehow self-evident. It's not.
The end is nigh
Yeah, lets just pretend that my concerns are not valid. I'm just nit-picking for the sake of it. Idiot.
>implying I typed Singer or attempted to
nope
He's just a drama queen, he can't help it.
I think you actually implied his type first page.
I'm pretty sure I didn't. I said it's likely that he is a feeler, just a guess. That as far as I went with his typing.
Okay. Plot thickens.
Would have to watch that, besides, I don't really know what is the point in typing that guy when people can't arrive at their own.
Anyway, doesn't sound very much Fi, but I didn't spend much time on it, had to fly. Maybe I'm going to some day. Why don't you, like, tell the audience what is so Fi about that guy?
I can very well be wrong.
Last edited by Absurd; 02-16-2013 at 06:22 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
