Equal distribution assumption

[Joy]

The ability to do so is determined via biological cognitive genetic "programming." How you process information (in typology) is not a choice so much as it is a biological disposition which naturally creates limitations on the ability of individuals (or types) to process information. Your biological composition creates natural limitations on your ability to process information in certain ways. In other words: your biology affects your cognitive ability to process information.

My point was that being "bad at" something or "good at" something doesn't necessarily mean those functions are weak or strong in you. See the stuff I said about my mom for examples.

Actually, I acted a lot like you do now when I was younger. (My motivation, if not my tone, was the same.) Then I realized that it was immature, a waste of my time, and a source of unnecessary stress. It sucks that you have nothing better to do with your life.

I thought of saying something related to this to phaedrus... might as well do it now.

Phaedrus, two things:

First and most importantly, if you can't comfortably allow other people to be wrong you're setting yourself up for constant and endless stress, unhappiness, and bad relationships. People are very frequently wrong about things. It happens. That's just how things are, and nothing anyone could ever say or do will change that. As long as your level of internal comfort or state of wellbeing is dependent on the behavior and thoughts of others, you are going to be miserable.

Secondly, if what you truly want is for people to be better informed with more accurate information, what you're essentially trying to do is teach. There are many different methods used to teach, some far more effective than others.

• Those who use encouragement to inspire people to want to learn and discover are good teachers.
• Those who simply present information for people to review or absorb according their desire and ability are typical teachers.
• Those who aggressively defend their position and attack those who disagree are doing nothing more than protecting their sense of self.

What do you think you're going to accomplish by insisting that a person is wrong, speaking almost exclusively in absolutes, throwing around insults, and name calling? If your goal is to teach someone new/different information, the best thing to do is to encourage/inspire them to want to learn about it. (Simply presenting the information in and of itself can also be effective.) What you generally do, however, does nothing more than prevent people from taking you seriously and/or make them feel as though they need to defend their position. As a result, they are not open to what you're saying (regardless of how correct it may be).

In summary, ask yourself what you desire to accomplish. Do you want to create a positive result for yourself? (If so, see my first point.) Do you want to create a positive result for others? (If so, see my second point.)

[Joy]

I actually think he's just acting his role of Phaedrus.

"Those who aggressively defend their position and attack those who disagree are doing nothing more than protecting their sense of self."

He must know people won't believe him no matter how many times he states to tell the truth, as long as he can't give evidences. And he can't give evidences, as they are impossible to find without ultimate knowledge, and that means it's not possible for any human being to know the truth. Hence Phaedrus is not telling the truth unless he's not human.

The interesting thing is that we would believe him more if he had some information to support his claims, as if that would make them more true. It might make them more probable in our opinions, but not necessarily more true.

Regardless of whether or not it's possible for a human to KNOW the ultimate truth of everything, it is not the reason people tend not to give consideration to what Phaedrus is saying. As I said to him above, "What you generally do, however, does nothing more than prevent people from taking you seriously and/or make them feel as though they need to defend their position."

[Joy]

Sounds terribly arbitrary. I don't see why they can't simply think it's more effective to curb negative behaviors than enforce positive behaviors.

Why would someone feel the need to curb negative behaviors in others? This question could lead to a long discussion about human nature, but I'm not really interested in spending a lot of time on the subject right here and now.

My point is that, based on my observations and understanding of human behavior, when someone has a need to be right, it is because that person is defending his/her self-concept/identity/ego/whatever you want to call it.

Something else that may vary individually.

How is it possible to allow yourself to be upset with something that goes on all of the time everywhere you go and not find that you're often upset?

[Logos]

My point was that being "bad at" something or "good at" something doesn't necessarily mean those functions are weak or strong in you. See the stuff I said about my mom for examples.

But it is still biologically determined abilities and preferences, which is my point.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, two things:

First and most importantly, if you can't comfortably allow other people to be wrong you're setting yourself up for constant and endless stress, unhappiness, and bad relationships.

That is probably generally true.

People are very frequently wrong about things. It happens. That's just how things are, and nothing anyone could ever say or do will change that.

I know.

As long as your level of internal comfort or state of wellbeing is dependent on the behavior and thoughts of others, you are going to be miserable.

Yes. Fortunately for me I don't have that problem.

Secondly, if what you truly want is for people to be better informed with more accurate information, what you're essentially trying to do is teach.

Teaching is not a strong interest of mine. I wish that people were able to learn things correctly without my help. But that very seldom happens.

There are many different methods used to teach, some far more effective than others.

Yes.

Those who use encouragement to inspire people to want to learn and discover are good teachers.

Not necessarily. That depends on what they are teaching. Inspiring charlatans is very common and evil phenomenon.

Those who simply present information for people to review or absorb according their desire and ability are typical teachers.

Yes.

Those who aggressively defend their position and attack those who disagree are doing nothing more than protecting their sense of self.

In some cases, yes. In all cases, no. There are quite a few good examples of people who aggressively attack the superstitions of others, and those teachers are doing a great job sometimes. For example Richard Dawkins is worth all our respect and praise for what he does in this respect.

What do you think you're going to accomplish by insisting that a person is wrong, speaking almost exclusively in absolutes, throwing around insults, and name calling?

Stating the truth.

If your goal is to teach someone new/different information, the best thing to do is to encourage/inspire them to want to learn about it.

My goal is not to teach. But no matter how many times I declare that, people continue to give me advice on how to become a better teacher anyway. Strange phenomenon ...

(Simply presenting the information in and of itself can also be effective.)

But not on this forum.

What you generally do, however, does nothing more than prevent people from taking you seriously and/or make them feel as though they need to defend their position.

That's their problem, not mine.

As a result, they are not open to what you're saying (regardless of how correct it may be).

Which means that they are idiots who are not interested in the truth. To close your eyes to the truth just because you don't like its presenation is a sure sign of idiocy.

In summary, ask yourself what you desire to accomplish. Do you want to create a positive result for yourself? (If so, see my first point.) Do you want to create a positive result for others? (If so, see my second point.)

Neither. Both alternatives are irrelevant.

[Phaedrus]

I actually think he's just acting his role of Phaedrus.

I am never acting.

He must know people won't believe him no matter how many times he states to tell the truth, as long as he can't give evidences. And he can't give evidences, as they are impossible to find without ultimate knowledge, and that means it's not possible for any human being to know the truth. Hence Phaedrus is not telling the truth unless he's not human.

I am not human.

The interesting thing is that we would believe him more if he had some information to support his claims, as if that would make them more true. It might make them more probable in our opinions, but not necessarily more true.

The information that supports my claims are always there, and there's plenty of it, and I almost always point out where it can be found. It is not my fault that people refuse to look at it.

[Joy]

Then what are you hoping to accomplish?

[Phaedrus]

Then what are you hoping to accomplish?

To state the truth and criticize false statements.

[Joy]

To state the truth and criticize false statements.

Simply stating that something is true or not true isn't the same as insisting that a person is wrong, speaking almost exclusively in absolutes, throwing around insults, and name calling. You certainly appear to care whether people think what you believe they should think or not. It's beyond simply believing that it would be better for people to think correctly. If you weren't personally invested, you wouldn't continuously put forth the amount of time, energy, and attention to it that you do.

The same concept applies to this:

As long as your level of internal comfort or state of wellbeing is dependent on the behavior and thoughts of others, you are going to be miserable.

Yes. Fortunately for me I don't have that problem.

People who are feeling comfortable don't attack others.


However... I've already said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to try to convince you that you do or don't feel a particular way.

[Logos]

To state the truth and criticize false statements.

Well you are doing poorly on both counts.

[Joy]

The other side of the coin is that such people might be uplifted by their surroundings too.

The positivity vs. negativity of it would come down to how commonly they are exposed to things that affect them and how strongly they are affected: someone who experiences ecstasy every time he/she sees the color white and turmoil every time he/she sees pigs flying vs. someone who experiences turmoil every time he/she sees the color white and ecstasy every time he/she sees pigs flying

Why would someone feel the need to promote positive behaviors? At the very least, negative behaviors are sometimes and obstacle to positive behaviors.

It has been documented that people/animals generally respond better when desired behaviors are rewarded than they do when undesired behaviors are punished, but I agree that there definitely are people with good intentions who use the latter.

[Phaedrus]

Simply stating that something is true or not true isn't the same as insisting that a person is wrong, speaking almost exclusively in absolutes, throwing around insults, and name calling.

They are not necessarily different things either.

You certainly appear to care whether people think what you believe they should think or not.

I care about true beliefs, and I hate false beliefs.

It's beyond simply believing that it would be better for people to think correctly.

Yes. I insist that people don't think incorrectly. If you don't try to think correctly, it is better not to think at all.

If you weren't personally invested, you wouldn't continuously put forth the amount of time, energy, and attention to it that you do.

You don't know that to be true in my case. You are just generalizing from personal experiences.

People who are feeling comfortable don't attack others.

I don't attack others. I attack their false beliefs.

[Phaedrus]

Well you are doing poorly on both counts.

No, I am better than most people at it.

[Joy]

They are not necessarily different things either.


I care about true beliefs, and I hate false beliefs.


Yes. I insist that people don't think incorrectly. If you don't try to think correctly, it is better not to think at all.


You don't know that to be true in my case. You are just generalizing from personal experiences.

oh?

I don't attack others. I attack their false beliefs.

Attacking a belief: "That is wrong."
Attacking a person: "You are an idiot."

[Joy]

Yes. And while Phaedrus may find himself ruing the wall color, surely there are other forms of said dependency that are less imbalanced.

I'd say we're all "dependent" on it to some extent. We all live in the physical world, after all. The key is that I believe that we can decide what we will and will not be dependent on (and how dependent we will be), to a large extent.

I can't affirm or dispute that. As I said, it's not something I have much evidence of myself. However I would caution that it could vary by task/situation and even beyond that different types of people might respond differently than average. (It could even be related to something like Socionics.)

I have wondered if it could be type related, at least to some extent.

[Phaedrus]

oh?

Yes, what would be the point of having a discussion if not to insist on correct thinking? That's what every discussion should be about, otherwise it is not a discussion or a debate but just a conversation or a chat.

Attacking a belief: "You are wrong."

Stating a fact.

Attacking a person: "You are an idiot."

That's also stating a fact.

[Joy]

Yes, what would be the point of having a discussion if not to insist on correct thinking? That's what every discussion should be about, otherwise it is not a discussion or a debate but just a conversation or a chat.


Stating a fact.


That's also stating a fact.

Okay, I've had my fill. Top of the day to you. *tips hat*

[Joy]

Yeah.

[Hitta]

No, you wouldn't be able to. That is a fact.

I'm sick of you and the word fact. You throw things around and call them facts, and call people morons because they don't agree with what you say because you are insecure. The faceless man, you've created an impenetrable wall. You are a man that can't be reasoned with. You've attached yourself to probability, to this reality. You are no more closer to truth than any of us. Unwilling to accept something more, something that goes beyond rationale and certainty. You've become the ultimate attachment to this possible illusion, unwilling to look at the possibilities of our existence. This is because accepting things as fact gives you security, you don't have to look at the nihilism potential of life.

[Phaedrus]

I'm sick of you and the word fact.

It has probably got something to do with the fact that you don't what the word "fact" means. You don't understand what a fact is, and you don't understand the concept truth.

You throw things around and call them facts, and call people morons because they don't agree with what you say because you are insecure.

No, I am very secure. I am just stating the facts.

The faceless man, you've created an impenetrable wall.

"The wall is made of granite", said the oracle.

You are a man that can't be reasoned with.

I can always be reasoned with -- if you use correct logic and don't deny the objective facts.

You've attached yourself to probability, to this reality. You are no more closer to truth than any of us.

On the subjects where people disagree with me, I am definitely closer to the truth than most of you.

Unwilling to accept something more, something that goes beyond rationale and certainty.

Of course not. Don't tell me that you accept something that goes beyond what you can rationally justifiy. Or maybe that is just what we should expect from a logically incoherent relativist.

You've become the ultimate attachment to this possible illusion, unwilling to look at the possibilities of our existence.

That is typical mumbo-jumo talk. Do you realize that fact?

This is because accepting things as fact gives you security, you don't have to look at the nihilism potential of life.

More mumbo-jumbo talk. You are an enemy of reason and science.

[FDG]

well, everywhere but italy. because in italy men are tough and macho, which is obviously the same thing as being logical.

actually, italian men have a worldwide reputation of being anything but tough and macho!

[Hitta]

Sometimes I wonder if Phaedrus is a robot programmed with automated responses.

[FDG]

Where I'm from, Italian men are considered loud, obnoxious womanizers - but nobody thinks they're macho, just trying to look macho.

Yeah, I think that is more like the stereotype.

[iAnnAu]

I would say that equal distribution may be valid on a global scale, but in a microcosm therein there can be clustering. For instance, my home town exists to support the employees of the neighboring nuclear research facility. It's a small town, about 4200 people, and the vast majority of those people are employees of AECL, the children of employees or retired employees. If you believe that certain types are naturally predisposed to certain areas of study, then you have to agree that the logical conclusion is that an isolated region built to foster one specialized and technical facility would have an uneven distribution of types. That doesn't mean that it exludes certain types entirely, but one would expect a huge influx of logicals (which seems to hold true).

I went to Jr & Sr high school in Oak Ridge, TN - one of the former secret cities of the Manhattan Project. Back in the 40's, the gov't shipped out the locals, shipped in a bunch of research scientists & their families, and made the whole city of 75K classified. After the war, when the gates came down, many families stayed because they'd already been there for years. Generations later, the town continues to cater to highly specialized industries, and two of the three research facilities continue to do secretive stuff.
It was an extremely strange place to be a kid. Many of my friends had parents who both had Ph.D.s, and the public high school always beat the shit out of all the other schools in the area - in academics, sports and music/ marching.
Of course, you also had the kids from hardcore redneck families, some of whom were honest-to-god inbred, already losing teeth in their teens, already had two kids before 18, etc. It was, I repeat, one fucked-up place to be a kid.
I honestly can't imagine that the type distribution comes anywhere close to even.

As an aside, after 19 or 20 pages of this debate, I would think that the whole premise of even distribution of types would be "over time, across a self-sustaining society". Rick somewhere in his blog talks about how when one trait comes to be over-represented, the dichotomous trait becomes valued by its scarcity. Whether type is preset from the genes or if it is affected by life circumstances, I would think that this means that at any given time there is a very low likelihood of an equal distribution of types, and only as a part of the swinging of the pendulum in the process of some trait or another gaining ascendancy.
It's dynamic, right?

[Ezra]

Society works on a supply and demand basis. Whatever is needed, is got. So of course these nuclear research sites will have an influx of logicals. In ancient Sparta, there was probably a 90% population of Beta STs. All the other quadras died out through social Darwinism; the only ones who survived were those that forced themselves to adopt a certain way of being (obviously Beta STs felt right at home). In Athenian politics, Betas flourished. Gammas flourished. Deltas flourished. Alphas flourished. It was far more meritocratic, far more balanced, and this is why Athens thrives as a city today, and Sparta, the unbalanced nation, does not. What's the moral of the story? The societies that flourish are those that have a healthy mixture of the quadras, and who utilise every type to their full capacity. Don't kill the Delta NF because (s)he can't fight properly; turn them into a social worker or a councillor. Why should we eliminate the SEE because they're wild beings, when they make perfect personal trainers? Each plays his part. If the ruler is wise (be this a single individual, or a market, or whatever other entity), the supply and demand principle works to optimum effect. People's skills are utilised because society recognises that everyone - everyone - has some use to it. If it doesn't, shit befalls the people, and society doesn't work properly.

[Phaedrus]

In ancient Sparta, there was probably a 90% population of Beta STs.

Absolutely not. How stupid are you? Don't you know anything about statistics and probability theory?