Race & Impact on Personality Types

[Phaedrus]

The bit I quoted.

Okay, now I understand what you were getting at, but your interpretation is incorrect. I don't mean population. I don't mean the group of people that happens to live in a certain area of the world. I mean groups of people that can be identified through their genetical differences, which of course to a large extent are the result of having lived in the same region of the world for several generations.

What is controversial about this? Nothing should be. We know that there are fundamental genetical differences that explain why some groups of people with a coloured skin have a natural advantage in some sports, like trying to run 100 metres the fast as you can. I don't know of any physical sport where white people would have a natural advantage over black people, but maybe there is.

I don't know of any mental sport where it is obvious that one of these two groups of people would have a natural advantage over the other, but that can't be ruled out either before we have empirical evidence to support such a radical view. It is radical to assume that there are no significant differences between different races, because it is of course much more likely that there are such differences than that there aren't.

[tcaudilllg]

Okay, now I understand what you were getting at, but your interpretation is incorrect. I don't mean population. I don't mean the group of people that happens to live in a certain area of the world. I mean groups of people that can be identified through their genetical differences, which of course to a large extent are the result of having lived in the same region of the world for several generations.

What is controversial about this? Nothing should be. We know that there are fundamental genetical differences that explain why some groups of people with a coloured skin have a natural advantage in some sports, like trying to run 100 metres the fast as you can. I don't know of any physical sport where white people would have a natural advantage over black people, but maybe there is.

I don't know of any mental sport where it is obvious that one of these two groups of people would have a natural advantage over the other, but that can't be ruled out either before we have empirical evidence to support such a radical view. It is radical to assume that there are no significant differences between different races, because it is of course much more likely that there are such differences than that there aren't.

This is madness. Take it outside of General Discussion, if you must discuss it at all. We're walking down the path of Francis Crick here, and he has been disgraced for a reason.

Truth be told, this debate is an extension of ******'s own philosophy. It was he who in Mein Kampf hypothesized that some races were more "inventive" than others.

rmcnew, what do you think? Should we let this thread stand, or should we close it? These ideas are only fodder for the psychologically unhealthy. What do the rest of you say? Gilly, UDP, Jxrtres, Logos, Cone, Implied, Diana, and everyone else. Is the right thing going to be done here, or are we going to just look the other way in the face of a corrupting evil?

As for the liberal/conservatism article....
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodio/

[tcaudilllg]

Seems like certain types are more common through race. how does culture influence this?

You've yet to give us evidence of the above claim. Thus, why should we even ponder how culture influences it?

[Slacker]

There is no reason to assume that types aren't evenly distributed. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. MBTI test results are useless because they're two different systems and the people might be mistyped under that system anyway.

I have one word for Phaedrus. RANDOM. Sometimes things are random, or have an element of randomness in them. Types could be completely random, or partially genetic and partially random, or have some other partial biological cause and be partially random, etc. I'd believe they were 100% random before I'd believe that Asians are generally some given type.

[Phaedrus]

This is madness. Take it outside of General Discussion, if you must discuss it at all. We're walking down the path of Francis Crick here, and he has been disgraced for a reason.

Are you a lunatic, tcaudilllg? Or what is the matter with you? Why can't you handle the truth? You attitude here is nothing but pathetic.

Truth be told, this debate is an extension of ******'s own philosophy. It was he who in Mein Kampf hypothesized that some races were more "inventive" than others.

I have just lost almost all my respect for your intellectual capacity. Maybe you are just a total fake, like Hegel. Don't you understand the logical difference between a fact and a value judgment? I am only discussion empirical facts here, I am not saying anything about the value of these facts. These empirical facts regarding differences between groups of people have no logical impact whatsoever on how we shall treat those people.

rmcnew, what do you think? Should we let this thread stand, or should we close it? These ideas are only fodder for the psychologically unhealthy. What do the rest of you say? Gilly, UDP, Jxrtres, Logos, Cone, Implied, Diana, and everyone else. Is the right thing going to be done here, or are we going to just look the other way in the face of a corrupting evil?

Burn all books that are expressing ideas that don't fit your system! Censor every discussion that threatens your feel of security! Curse the objective truth and replace it with ideological dogmatism!

You attitude here, tcaudilllg, is so morally wrong and so totally disgusting that there are no words for it. It's an extremely typical example of leading when it is showing it's very worst side to the world. I hate this pukeworthy narrow-mindedness of leading types. Your attitude is intellectually dishonest, it is a disgrace to truth and a scientific attitude of mind. Basically it is a fascist attitude that stands opposed to everything that is good and true. You want to replace the independent search for truth with the use of power to impose your own subjective ideology on society.

[tcaudilllg]

Are you a lunatic, tcaudilllg? Or what is the matter with you? Why can't you handle the truth? You attitude here is nothing but pathetic.


I have just lost almost all my respect for your intellectual capacity. Maybe you are just a total fake, like Hegel. Don't you understand the logical difference between a fact and a value judgment? I am only discussion empirical facts here, I am not saying anything about the value of these facts. These empirical facts regarding differences between groups of people have no logical impact whatsoever on how we shall treat those people.


Burn all books that are expressing ideas that don't fit your system! Censor every discussion that threatens your feel of security! Curse the objective truth and replace it with ideological dogmatism!

You attitude here, tcaudilllg, is so morally wrong and so totally disgusting that there are no words for it. It's an extremely typical example of leading when it is showing it's very worst side to the world. I hate this pukeworthy narrow-mindedness of leading types. Your attitude is intellectually dishonest, it is a disgrace to truth and a scientific attitude of mind. Basically it is a fascist attitude that stands opposed to everything that is good and true. You want to replace the independent search for truth with the use of power to impose your own subjective ideology on society.

Your beliefs are founded on lies and mistruths. Every day you partake of miracles that were made possible only by the use of subjective truth in the face of uncertainty.

[Phaedrus]

Your beliefs are founded on lies and mistruths. Every day you partake of miracles that were made possible only by the use of subjective truth in the face of uncertainty.

Now it is a proven fact -- you really are one of Hegel's disciples. Such incredible mumbo-jumbo, such disgusting misuse of languge ... "the use of subjective truth in the face of uncertainty ... such total intellectual crap ...

Where is Schopenhauer when you need him?

[tcaudilllg]

Now it is a proven fact -- you really are one of Hegel's disciples. Such incredible mumbo-jumbo, such disgusting misuse of languge ... "the use of subjective truth in the face of uncertainty ... such total intellectual crap ...

Where is Schopenhauer when you need him?

Dead, obviously.

Your problem is that you can't see the truth in other people's views. You can't accept that whatever their views, they each have a unique psychological perspective that leads to distinct form of truth.

The only way to judge such truth is its applicability on a large scale? Will it or will it not lead to effective adaptation to objective conditions? Will it or will it not support the growth of life?

Your truth cannot, and I see... no, I will not say it. It is true that I have basis for what I see... but it not socially acceptable. I will only predict... that 40 years hence, you will face your lie, and see it for the objective dishonesty it truly is.

[Phaedrus]

Your problem is that you can't see the truth in other people's views. You can't accept that whatever their views, they each have a unique psychological perspective that leads to distinct form of truth.

With almost every comment you make you are proving one of my general type theses: that LIIs tend to be self-refuting relativists. You are one of the most obvious examples of such an intellectual meltdown. Every form of relativism is necessarily either false (because it is self-refuting) or trivial. It is sad to see that you are an advocate of the former kind of relativism, which means that you are simply stupid. To attribute logical reasoning to is an insult to logic itself. I can't believe that people are so unable to see the obvious differences between your idiotic perspective and my perspective.

Your stance here is a typcial example of Reinin's Subjectivism. My stance is a typical example of Reinin's Objectivism. Every single member of this forum must be able to recognize this simple and extremely obvious fact.

The only way to judge such truth is its applicability on a large scale? Will it or will it not lead to effective adaptation to objective conditions? Will it or will it not support the growth of life?

This is a disgusting form of Subjectivism. Relativism is a plague. We should to our best to get rid of it. You don't understand the concept of truth, and you don't realize that your position is logically contradictory. How much worse can it get?

[Logos]

Burn all books that are expressing ideas that don't fit your system! Censor every discussion that threatens your feel of security! Curse the objective truth and replace it with ideological dogmatism!

You attitude here, tcaudilllg, is so morally wrong and so totally disgusting that there are no words for it. It's an extremely typical example of leading when it is showing it's very worst side to the world. I hate this pukeworthy narrow-mindedness of leading types. Your attitude is intellectually dishonest, it is a disgrace to truth and a scientific attitude of mind. Basically it is a fascist attitude that stands opposed to everything that is good and true. You want to replace the independent search for truth with the use of power to impose your own subjective ideology on society.

Your misunderstanding of (especially leading- in this case) is so horrendous it is not even funny, well maybe a little funny.