Barrack Obama (Betas Only)

[Beautiful sky]

I'm really sort of at a loss as to how to explain things to crazedrat.

Hummm...interesting...

If I explain things in terms of A > B > C, his response is basically along the lines of "You don't know that. The universe could explode at any second, so there is no objective truth, except for the things that I arbitrarily have decided are correct."

algorythms....

He basically randomly takes a side, then justifies it by saying that objective reality is an illusion. If he's going to outright refuse to be realistic, there's not a whole lot I can say or do, except be mean to him as punishment for being ignorant.

I don't think he says thet objective reality is an illusion as much as he says that his reality is the only objective reality to consider.

[discojoe]

I don't think he says thet objective reality is an illusion as much as he says that his reality is the only objective reality to consider.

But his counter-arguments always amount to "Yeah, but what if everyone gets AIDS? Then what?" Unless what I say neatly plans for every possible contingency, it is worthless in his mind. He has no common sense, no concept of when to stop nitpicking at nothing and finally admit that something is correct.

Basically, he denies what is real because his filter for determining what does and does not make sense is extremely narrow, to the point that reality almost becomes meaningless.

[Beautiful sky]

But his counter-arguments always amount to "Yeah, but what if everyone gets AIDS? Then what?" Unless what I say neatly plans for every possible contingency, it is worthless in his mind. He has no common sense, no concept of when to stop nitpicking at nothing and finally admit that something is correct.

Basically, he denies what is real because his filter for determining what does and does not make sense is extremely narrow, to the point that reality almost becomes meaningless.

sure, logic is either things that are objective or subjective right?...objective reality is real reflection of reality based on logic...subjective is only that which makes sense to the person, even if the logic itself is meaningless and not real.

Two realities, two logics

One that's real and one that exists in the person's head...

[discojoe]

sure, logic is either things that are objective or subjective right?...objective reality is real reflection of reality based on logic...subjective is only that which makes sense to the person, even if the logic itself is meaningless and not real.

Two realities, two logics

One that's real and one that exists in the person's head...

Uh, yeah, that actually makes sense.

Also, crazedrat is consciously aware of his own belief that there is no objective reality, and he uses this belief to discount what I say in order to justify siding with whatever system he happens to prefer.

[Beautiful sky]

Uh, yeah, that actually makes sense.

Also, crazedrat is consciously aware of his own belief that there is no objective reality, and he uses this belief to discount what I say in order to justify siding with whatever system he happens to prefer.

Yeah if you don't have a good handle on objective reality and don't want to then you can only live and base your conclusions on your personal feelings for things...his personal feelings. That's neither a value of Te nor a ego block function of Te...What's left is to live life on concepts/IDEAS which are Se and Ne... or Si and Ni...

Not types...
ESTj, ENTj
INFj, ISFj

ESFp, ENFp
INTp, ISTp

[discojoe]

Yeah if you don't have a good handle on objective reality and don't want to then you can only live and base your conclusions on your personal feelings for thing...these personal feelings. That's neither a value of Te nor a ego block function of Te...

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but I think Te types can also fall into the trap of being so "practical" that they see no point in trying to fix anything.

I believe that crazedrat is also a typical, emotionally unstable liberal who is practically incapable of rational thought.

Here's an interesting study from Zogby:

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents’ (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

crazedrat's response will some nitpicky bullshit about how Zogby can't know what it means to be economically unenlightened.

[Beautiful sky]

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but I think Te types can also fall into the trap of being so "practical" that they see no point in trying to fix anything.

I believe that crazedrat is also a typical, emotionally unstable liberal who is practically incapable of rational thought.

Here's an interesting study from Zogby:

Emotional thought is still thinking based on feelings. INFp, when you think about it, is at the extreme end of all things "irrational"

Essencially you can't enlighten anyone who you can't emotionally convince to follow suit.