Typing

[Myst]

As far as consistency, I guess framed in a particular light it would be considered the most consistent, but I mostly meant that if a principle/idea I generally agree with has some sort of autistic and distasteful conclusion I just opt not to follow it to that far, consistency be damned in that case. The other meaning would be how in America at least all of these different ideas and frameworks often are built around an assumption of absolute universality--how it applies in one instance is how it must apply in all instances. That premise strikes me as collossally naive and stupid. My People aren't Those People.

Hm well yeah you do need to add more conditions in many cases than just apply the thing universally. Very few principles can be applied truly universally.

So by extending and improving the system, you can avoid the wrong conclusions.

It's interesting how you learned to recognise how a conclusion would be "autistic or distasteful". This definitely requires some more awareness or trust in feelings than what you had before, when you were trying to follow the conclusions blindly.

An example of this universalism is the American inertia to "Free Trade," that universal equal uninhibited access to the national economy--internationally--is eo ipso a generator of positive results and sacrosanct. If towns are being thrown into economic depression and total unemployment because the jobs leave for India or China then those American workers should just "get more competitive" (how is never stated, often it means similarly accepting slave wages). The notion of the American government taking policy action specifically on behalf of the economic interests of Americans simply because they're Americans, irrespective of inhibiting and market distorting effects, is anathema because it's an anti-universalist and in that way inconsistent implementation of the idea of a Market Economy.

I would say in our current world it's quite fine and the most sensible for the government to take action for their people, as we (as in, humanity overall) definitely did not create the environment so far for true globalism.

And it's an interesting question, I just rarely contemplate it lol, about how you'd want to reconcile globalism with nationalism.

But as you pointed out, if reframed from a starting point of "I will do what's best for my people" it can become consistent rather than hypocritical. The accusation of hypocrisy on things like that doesn't phase me at all, anymore, I guess was the main drive of my statement.

Yes, that's a good overall high-level principle. What kind of people accused you of hypocrisy?

Hmm, explicit/implicit is a new way to think of it for me. I had been stuck with true/false vs morally right/wrong.

Well it's a Socionics distinction for Sensing/Logic vs Intuition/Ethics. For me the most interesting was to figure out/accept that Ethics is implicit.

Yeah lol I thought so as well. I meant it more in a general principle as well. The very idea of any sort of discernment between good, bad, correct, incorrect, true, and false is anathema today.

+1000

It hurts people's feelings, and excludes people, ideas, and things. The mindset and implications, ontologically, always make me viscerally nearly irrationally angry.

Wasn't the idea actually to avoid hurting people's feelings and total inclusion?

Got a couple videos that are the first ones I could recall as being in that ballpark off the top of my head. Not trying to convert anyone (but everyone totally should : P ) but the biggest ones that come to mind are stories of Saint martyrs, a few Bible verses in those contexts, and St Louis de Montfort's prayer to Mary

Thanks for the examples. Yeah, you want an EIE lol

My job forces me to approach/initiate conversation with strangers on the phone and in person regularly and frequently. Some of the client engagements are specifically about starting conversations with people in order to elicit either information or physical access to the premises. Kind of a "sink or swim" thrown in the deep-end solution, but at least it worked.

I've heard that from an LSI before.

To clarify I don't think that "people" necessarily a functionally redundant set in every possible scenario, but that for it to be meaningful would require a considerable social set existing outside of it which poses at least a potential existential threat to make a common "humanity" exist presently, and proximately in my and other's minds contra the not-humanity of the new other, a la the process the boys in the Robber's Cave Experiment automatically engaged in once the experiment organizers were able to externally provide a common goal.

But since antagonistic aliens aren't very likely, that's all hypothetical lol

I don't think only other living beings can pose a potential existential threat.

And that is a strong argument for globalism for me.

Even if not doing it in the nonsensical way as it's now. (I'm not going to get too political here now lol, but yeah, the attempt at introducing these migrants was done in a totally disorganised chaotic silly and very harmful way.)

I'm assuming particularly introverted Rationality, since my understanding of extroverted Rationality would have to take stock of multiple data points or sources of emotional input first.

I think Ej's are very decisive too, they easily take stock of those multiple data points in a dynamically flexible way (flexible compared to Ij lol).

[Beautiful sky]

These questions are not a good way to type people