Absurd, I don't cherry pick. If you do this, you'll just start seeing people as psychotic or whatever term you come up with and end up justifying your nonsense by doing so. Those extremes are a natural fact of life. What claim can you possibly make to place them legitimately under clinical?Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
It's very dangerous territory you embark in when you even suggest some mental states to be abnormal. You can almost always expect retaliation at some point. It's inhumane.
That's not my position. Reread until you get it right.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Ridiculous. You can't even engage in debate without making this into some kind of mental wankery. My position is valid.
Okay, then what is extreme exactly? Who decides what's pathological? Relative to what and to who? You? You stated this to support your argument. That means you indirectly share an opinion that what you stated is accurate and real. If you have thought about this so well, you should have no problem answering my questions.an extreme imbalance of chemicals and dysfunctional behavioral & mental arrangements are what is classified as pathological or psychological disorders. But its only when such conditions are extreme that they are clinically diagnosed, truth is, all people lean towards some area(s) of a disorder(s), such as psychopathy, narcissism and sociopathy.
You misunderstood my position, as such your response doesn't even address what I was talking about.
What medical professionals and practitioners who work in the fields of pathology and psychology deem extreme and disorderly is what is used to classify extremities and disorders. This fact has nothing to do with me or my outlook, so your previous response:doesn't apply to me, because I'm not doing anything of the sort.If you do this, you'll just start seeing people as psychotic or whatever term you come up with and end up justifying your nonsense by doing so. Those extremes are a natural fact of life. What claim can you possibly make to place them legitimately under clinical?
It's very dangerous territory you embark in when you even suggest some mental states to be abnormal. You can almost always expect retaliation at some point. It's inhumane.
I gave quotes of earlier posts of mine. My opinion is that there is no such thing as true disorders, because we are all products of various mixtures and arrangements. Sure we can come up with averages and standards, and concrete differences can be measured in chemical deficiencies and what-not, but still it's only relative. There is nothing declaring a rule that we have to exist in only one way.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
That's fine, but you said...I gave quotes of earlier posts of mine. My opinion is that there is no such thing as true disorders, because we are all products of various mixtures and arrangements. Sure we can come up with averages and standards, and concrete differences can be measured in chemical deficiencies and what-not, but still it's only relative. There is nothing declaring a rule that we have to exist in only one way.
But its only when such conditions are extreme that they are clinically diagnosed, truth is, all people lean towards some area(s) of a disorder(s), such as psychopathy, narcissism and sociopathy.Psychology is also important. Every person is a mix of chemicals and behavioral & mental arrangements; an extreme imbalance of chemicals and dysfunctional behavioral & mental arrangements are what is classified as pathological or psychological disorders. But its only when such conditions are extreme that they are clinically diagnosed, truth is, all people lean towards some area(s) of a disorder(s), such as psychopathy, narcissism and sociopathy.
Then why did you even mention it if it has nothing to do with the topic or your opinion? Nothing you said has any relevance to the topic then...
But you used it in the form of argument in the topic. That means you held a faith in professionals and practitioners on what is deemed extreme and disorderly to be used as argument. Unless you're suddenly claiming no such thing, then please tell me what reasons you have to hold such faith.
Last edited by DividedsGhost; 11-05-2011 at 04:21 PM.
Because they don't know how to be any other way.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Oh my god man. Are you trolling me?
My original post was an observational critique of what goes on in the medical world of pathology and psychology, a criticism against their methods. They only classify, by their standards, extremities and disorders, yet those same standards could be applied to many people at any given time, who wouldn't be classified with a disorder. How many times must I say that I believe psychological health is relative?
It's obvious where I begin critique, with "truth is...".
I'm done with this. It's already past a necessary point. If you have trouble with my original post it's your own fault.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Selfish is an often misused label.
I would rather be 'selfish' and honest.
Than 'giving' but a liar.
Some have purported to declare, by some kind of self-asserted intellectual godhood, the standards by which extreme behavior is judged. However, the truth of such matters is that although tolerance is relative, it's still mostly genetic, evaluated via the Golden Rule, and evolution has ruled in favor of a majority answer as such. When people experience something they cannot stand, they react. Perhaps an antagonistic chemical is generated against another chemical, and when this chemical is depleted a visceral response is engaged? Regardless, the genetic majoritarian response to a situation is the ultimate winner, although fear and intimidation can be used to "shape" its expression (we call this shaping, more often than not, "cultural" standards of behavior). Look out when the apparatus of fear fails though, because the results can be grim....
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 02-20-2012 at 02:57 PM.
Been thinking on this issue, and I've been wondering: could the sense of not having something that is wanted be something intolerable to selfish people, to the point that it is discomforting? That the sense of not being gratified is connected to the pain center in some way? This would be an internal pressure contrary -- and surpassing of -- conscience, because then everyone who is not a part of the grand scheme to get that which is wanted, is an enemy of the selfish person's well being.
Nobody gets what they want all the time. Toddlers have tantrums over that. I think some people never learn that it's really OK to not get what you want all the time. I don't know why, but when I see them rage it reminds me of a toddler having a tantrum.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I think this is a good way to see it. If absolutely everyone were looking out for each other, I suspect that nobody born into that environment would be inclined to abuse that.
Selfishness probably has something to do with notion of scarcity, or even power. I think to a large extent it is social observation and social conditioning. Scarcity is created. Society observes it. Society propagates the reality of scarcity and conditioning establishes. So when people grab what they want, they do it out of this sense of conditioning and observation. It's like a vicious circle. You believe what you see, but then you also see what you believe. Statements like " Opportunities don't come knocking on your door, grab it when its there!" That's conditioning, there is no such thing. Then you have the notion, you create your reality, you create opportunities. You are not a victim to life's circumstances. Now people who believe this, I don't know how much they grab and how much they believe in scarcity. So it is a need, but it's fulfilled in a way people feel they know best. You want it, take it. But I think this differs from other problems like how people perceive selfishness. If a homosexual man or woman decides to live the life they prefer against their parents' pain and misery... is that selfish? No. It is not. In this situation you are not functioning from scarcity. You are functioning from self realization. This does not take away from anyone. So in this sense, you could say the environment is being selfish.. by that I mean the people around the person... all forms of institutions. I think society can influence people and do influence people to constantly question loyalty vs selfishness. Control through guilt. Be loyal, be good, create harmony in society. Don't do things we don't like. If you do it, you are being selfish. So living your own life, without taking from others is constituted by some as selfish. But genuine greed, uncontrollable desire comes from suppression and repression of these needs and a lack of understanding of these needs in the first place. There is a difference between resources, states of consciousness and belief systems. You can have plenty and people want more. State of consciousness problem. Not resource problem. You can have tonne of resources and not use them. Again state of consciousness problem. Lack of resources but correct states of consciousness can actually increase resources.
...This thread is about people who you already perceive as being more 'selfish'... so it's you guys doing the pre-judging, not me.
Oh, that's third-person. Feel free to disagree with her.
If I say, "I want pizza." and someone disagrees with me, I will be annoyed with them for thinking they know me better than I do.
If I say, "Abbie wants pizza." and someone disagrees with me, we may have a long argument about why Abbie might want pizza.
'Selfish' is a blanket term. Selfish is often defined as using human resources to achieve personal and often material (equally often emotional) desires without compensation. Yet, compensation can be defined differently in so many situations; often, children prevail on their parents to grant them all sorts of material and emotional advantages and the compensation is extremely abstract, so I do not refer solely to monetary compensation.
But if we define every interaction as an exchange, this definition of selfishness breaks down, because an exchange in this case implies two consenting parties. Why would you consent to giving more than you feel you justly receive in an interaction with another? Do you not first have to agree to this unequal exchange and be selfless in order to dub the other selfish? It seems the guilt falls equally on the two parties, then.
That is, unless you're forced into an unequal exchange, but if someone is forcing you that implies a violence of sorts, the extremities of which are banned as can be applied by the general citizenry (extortion, robbery, slavery, etc.). Unless it's your workplace where this originates, as we all have to work in order to survive (for the most part), and this is quite violent in nature (if we do not work, we will die; welfare often includes labor, at least in US). We could then speculate that this is a fault of ourselves for having not achieved higher professional positions either through education or experience, a fault of society for having an unfair economic system, or whatever, but systems and personal failures are deserving of no human term like selfish.
So the fact remains the same that if you blame another individual for selfishness, either you or another must have been guilty of consenting to being selfless.
Well, here's the way I see it:
Everybody does what they want to do (voluntarism), but what a person wants to do is fundamental to that person. The only way for a person to intentionally change their desire is if they have a greater desire with priority.
Some people want to help others more than themselves. These people may be described as selfless.
Some people want to help themselves more than others. These people may be described as selfish.
A person cannot be held accountable for having a desire, because wanting something is a fundamental aspect of a person.
Therefore, while selfishness might be a bad thing, a selfish person is not a bad person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_process_variation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...tionary_theory
please note that I am not talking about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
I wrote once in chatbox when blabbing with BnD that empathy is a psychic ability that enables one to sense the emotions of others and being highly aware of the health and state of mind of their loved ones.
I don't think I can do that. I can't even fake it to begin with.
That's the first post coming from InkStrider I actually agree with to some extent for according to your sympathy, you will take pleasure in your own happiness or in the happiness of other people. The most profound egoist may be the most complete altruist so bare that in mind.
That's called being an utter idiot.
No doubt about it.
I don't think it is the case here. I don't have to like nor get along with certain people just because it is nice to do so. I'm not going to please everyone nor it is my intent.
But its only when such conditions are extreme that they are clinically diagnosed, truth is, all people lean towards some area(s) of a disorder(s), such as psychopathy, narcissism and sociopathy.
Last edited by Absurd; 02-20-2012 at 10:10 PM.
Absurd whenever someone mentions altruism, I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's words on the subject. To wit, he claimed himself to be exactly what you suggest: the most profound altruist out the most profound egoism.
Conscience hurts. Yes, yes it does.
Just impression. Because not all people give you what you want "by low prices" due to different types values.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
Once upon a time there was a guy who said to another guy that he has no conscience whilst walking with him to school. The other guy said it is impossible for god himself gave him conscience.
I've almost always considered it funny when Person A calls Person B selfish. Usually the label was given because Person A desired something (an actual thing, an expected activity, or the meeting of an ideal), which the 'selfish' Person B didn't give Person A.
And yes...this humour occurs even when I mumble about how selfish my daughter is.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Some how I have always found the evolutionary argument a bit weak ... in all fields. The strongest must survive notion. If one does consider survival of humanity important for example. Doesn't it make sense to create a harmonious environment so that they can survive and evolve? If people keep constantly grabbing in order for self survival, how many people will be left behind? Let's even assume that the weak are destroyed, the strong keep surviving, and they procreate making stronger humans. So now you have a strong race... okay, next questions... now what? Is that the vision humanity had for itself? To just be a strong race who can take what they want when they want? Isn't their a vision humanity has for itself? Don't we get to decide how we want our environment to be and what expression of humanity we wish to live and experience? What if humanity envisions emotional, psychological and spiritual evolution.. ? Is it a society that survived? or evolved? The human being can design it's future and create states of being that allow it's vision to survive. I feel most of the time this vision is dictated to them, rather than emergent of their own desire and understanding.
i dont really know anything about evolutionary science but i have the impression its about passing on your genes, not about the survival and well-being of the entire species. i'm sure there are some traits that are good for the whole that also happen to be useful toward that end, but i don't see any reason to think "humanity" itself envisions anything, unless you assume some kind of higher power embedded self-sacrificial behaviors or something?
its kind of a nice idea but i think theres also pleasure in the idea of it all being ugly, simple natures and at least having an idea of whats going on, to be able to work with what youve got and know what the limits are.
Evolution isn't about survival of the strong. It's about genetic mutations surviving long enough to be passed on to at least one other generation. How that survival came about doesn't particularly matter. It could've been strength, intelligence, agility, adaptability, scent, sight, ability to climb a tree, looks, hormones, domination over another, and even submitting to another. But ultimately, evolution emerged from the ability to spurt active seed into a primed vagina (forgot the term) combined with popping out a live baby which someone else is willing to care for.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I do understand what you are saying. But there is a larger aspect to this. A lot of scientists are questioning whether humanity is lead by it's gene or is the gene lead by humanity. The human being is a malleable creature. They way we live, the way we exist after a consistent period of time does evolve the human being in future generations in a certain way. If you stop using your left or right hand... and that continues through generations, that will influence the physicality of that hand eventually at a certain generation. I don't think evolution controls us. We control evolution. Quantum science too states that as much as you observe reality, you participate in it and therefore shape reality. Therefore you can never truly be objective. You are involved in what you see and perceive constantly. That's what the thought experiment Schroedinger's Cat wished to communicate as well. Anti matter manifests into matter. It is all energy essentially and energy has consciousness. I know this is a fictional example but Gene Rodenberry and his writers did mention something in their work. When they described the vulcan people as essentially barbaric initially, they showed how this culture through meditation and transcended understanding evolved to become a completely different representation of themselves. Such that now their future generations naturally take on these changes. Any culture's evolution cannot be controlled by their body. That just means we are our bodies captives and they not our vessel.
Exactly.
It's not about survival of the fittest as in the strongest, it is about survival of all that which works which means, ability is the only limitation.
True. But the question then is this... does it really work? If it works for humanity then it should continue. The day it doesn't, it will change. Also when I say strongest I mean a gaining strength or sustainability of what humanity deems valuable or working at that time. In the context of selfishness, does it serve humanity. That was what I was trying to address. Selfishness doesn't allow society to function better or serve it in anyway. The term evolution was used as a possible reason for it's existence and my point was its reason for existence seems more connected to conditioning than natural instinct. And even if it is considered natural instinct, it's evolution started with a mind set and perception which influenced future consequences of that mind set. But honestly, a bad idea can live for a very long time. So much so it seems natural. I think when the genesis of anything is unknown and has existed long enough, it is considered... natural. And even in it's existence we assume what it's capacity or ability is. Even in it's existence we assume what it is, but still don't really know it. There is always more to discover. What you see is what you get, but there is more where that came from.
Of course it will, without the ability to change/adapt to a new environment there wouldn't be talk about something working or not to begin with, but that requires numbers, a lot of numbers just to pull something like that off.
That's a bit tricky but interesting nonetheless.Also when I say strongest I mean a gaining strength or sustainability of what humanity deems valuable or working at that time.
Point is, you automatically assumed we are one as in taking into account various nations, folklore, blood feuds, etc. That's alright, but some people are going to disagree.
Humanity becomes humanity these days in times of peril.
Plus something like that has been tried in the past but some people saw it differently and a clash was inevitable. People assumed leadership and tried to make it work, I mean.
That's how some people saw it as well, so you're not alone.Selfishness doesn't allow society to function better or serve it in anyway.
There is always more to discover. What you see is what you get, but there is more where that came from.
Absurd: Point is, you automatically assumed we are one as in taking into account various nations, folklore, blood feuds, etc. That's alright, but some people are going to disagree.
I am sorry, I didn't get this completely... cold you elaborate this? Did I misunderstand something? You mentioned I assumed something...
Absurd: Plus something like that has been tried in the past but some people saw it differently and a clash was inevitable. People assumed leadership and tried to make it work, I mean.
Could you elaborate a bit on when this has been tried etc. Would love to learn more about it!
'Human Society' wouldn't even exist without selfishness.Selfishness doesn't allow society to function better or serve it in anyway.
From the moment a human baby comes out of the womb, it needs air, water, food, protection from the elements, and protection from predators. If it's unable to inspire someone to meet its needs, it will die, and its particular genetic setup won't continue on. If, however, its genetic setup predisposes someone else to meet its needs for it, then the baby has a better chance of surviving, and thus of continuing that gentic setup. This is its first society...made up of people who will meet its needs. *Without the selfish genetic setup, babies wouldn't survive. Generations of humans would not exist, human societies would not exist.
As the baby grows, it learns that there is safety in numbers. Children who stay where there are other people, are more likely to survive a danger than those who explore on their own. Those who survive are the ones who get a further chance to pass on their genetic setup, those who died, of course, don't. Meanwhile, hanging out in numbers usually means that there are a variety of people who will meet your needs, or help you learn to meet your own needs. This is the child's second society: those who the child can learn from, those who distract predators from themselves, and those who will meet their needs.
As the child grows, it learns that it must adhere to the society's ideals. Members of the society will try to coerce adherence by applying guilt and/or threat. Threat of punishment, threat of abandonment, threat of outcast. So either the young adult embraces the society's ideals, submits to them, rebels against them, and/or finds a different tribe/society to become a member of. The young adult is still being selfish, but then so is its 'society'. The society wants its ideals to be met, and will avoid allowing those who won't accept/submit to it, to breed. And so, society controls which genetic setups it will allow to carry on, and which it will reject. (Sins of the father's, dontchaknow.) By being selfish in this way, society has a chance of controlling allowable mindsets.
The problem is, there is no one society. There are multiples of them, ranging in various sizes, and even nested. Each trying to meet the needs of its members, even if at the cost of a different society/tribe. There are finite resources, and many ideas of how to obtain and utilize those resources. Each trying to 'encourage' their mindset to continue on, even at the cost of differing mindsets.
"Selfishness doesn't allow society to function better or serve it in anyway"????
Without the selfishness of its members, society wouldn't exist.
If the society does not meet the needs of its selfish members, the society will die off.
If the society dies off, future generations of that genetic setup won't survive nor be brought into existence.
Sorry..society and selfishness go hand in hand.
more like...If it works for humanity then it should continue. The day it doesn't, it will change.
If it works for at least one child-bearing couple, then it will continue...whether it 'should' or not is a different story. The day it doesn't work...is the day that genetic line dies off.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
You assumed that people act in a way that serves humanity. Humanity as in an organism and aggregation of cells. Those who group you this way or another have to have specialised techniques in their possession to direct the energy of humanity toward greater efficiency in accomplishing some goal.
They do as long they accept it is my answer.
Spain, U.S.S.R, Eastern Block, Cuba and China to name a few.Could you elaborate a bit on when this has been tried etc. Would love to learn more about it!
What did these countries do exactly?
I've thought it over. Desire is only one element out of 16, right? So we assume that a selfish person cannot get their desires out of their head, and as such, cannot think of anything else. The very fact that they don't have what they want is intolerable to them.
Saddam Hussein explained to his interrogator that the reason he invaded Kuwait is because he "couldn't get the idea out of his head". "I get something in my head and then I do it", he explained.
Assuming this rule holds for the other 15 elements, we find a desire for all of them relative to their valuation. A desire to have all the answers; a desire to be wealthy; a desire to win; a desire for ideas and fantasies. The list goes on. Most people placate themselves with alternatives, and at the very least honor their debts. But if impatience overrides obligation, then you end up in a case where the individual can never depend on anyone, except to satisfy their own impatience. But social people also have a sense of risk: a fear of losing what they already have and a recalcitrance based on this fear. Risky behavior is seen as a road to ruin.
It would seem that there is more than one reason very selfish people are selfish.
In a few words and like I wrote before they [leaders] saw Man as an aggregation of cells which means they didn't consider any one of us an individual. Sickness could be considered to be a disloyalty to the remaining organisms on the part of one organism which in turn leads to its collapse.
It is completely off-topic but I see the taint in some replies. Looks like certain people are being carried and guided and at the same time oppose their makers if not by not getting what it is all about, then completely misinterpreting what has been told unto them. Of course the maker can err as well.
Blah, never mind. Carry on.
Why would you call one who has desires so strong that they can think of nothing else selfish? Aside from the basic contradictions you run into (in the case of one who has altruistic desires), it is not at all negative to have strong desires. This is in contrast with the commonly accepted understanding of selfishness, which implies malice and a "Lack of consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.". You satisfy the second condition, perhaps, but certainly not the first.
Last edited by Atlast; 02-21-2012 at 09:54 PM.
True.... strong desires don't equal selfishness. Does unethical forms of acquiring desires equal selfishness? Maybe? Even greed and gluttony or what have you... it's strong uncontrollable desire... but not selfish (an alcoholic is not abusing the resources exactly...I don't think anyway)... but it might be affecting themselves. Selfishness = social disharmony.... Greed = internal disharmony?
Saddam's reasoning is worse than a 5 year old... what does that mean? Total lack of reasoning or consideration... but then the results show that. Seriously... hahaha " I can't get it out of my head!" What is it a britney spears tune?? But god knows what lives these people lead in order to lead to such conclusions... that would be interesting to know.
Like I said, I do not think it is the method that makes a person selfish, but the actual content of the desire. A person can do bad things with selfless intentions, ie the ends justify the means. But while selfishness may be a bad thing, it is not fair to say selfish people are bad people.
Why don't people ever respond to my ideas? D:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
