@Avebury, I like a society which has equal opportunities for every individual to express their innate talents.
Imagine a society in which you can’t give your offspring any inheritance or access to private schools.
In such a merit-based society, most people would focus on improving the institutions for everyone, not just for their own benefit.
@Adam Strange, I agree with you, partly, I also like the a society where people have equal opportunities and can express their innate talents, however I think forbidding access to private schools and saying people can't transmit their inheritance is wrong.
I think saying that public education needs to have a monopoly risks lowering the quality of education, and that if people wanna opt out of the factories that are public schools and be educated elsewhere, elsehow, stopping them would be monstrous.
Also, giving your children your money is a right but it changes little when you realize success correlates highly with IQ and that IQ is transmitted along genetic lines...if you want an example of this, consider how decades of communism in China was not able to stop the descendants of Chinese aristorcacy from becoming powerful even today. Also, someone who inherits a fortune but squanders it is not gonna stay rich for long anyways. So people who inherit also need to make the best of their situation. But that's not really the point, the point is, people have a right to do what they want with their money imo...so if they wanna disinherit their kids and give it to charity...that's their right...if they wanna give it all to their children that is also their right. It's their money.
Last edited by Ave; 08-19-2018 at 02:47 PM.
yeah the idea that success is pareto based sort of obsoletes some of these other debates, it means nature is aristocratic regardless of what government policy says
It's more likely that it's the "philosophy" or "relativism" that muddles the issue, while fairness or equality is more or less objective. I don't think anyone will object that 50:50 or everyone having the same share of the pie, is what is considered to be "fair".Originally Posted by Avebury
Almost everyone will intuitively understand that 50:50 is what is fair, or everyone will know how to cut the pie in a perfectly symmetrical way. Almost everyone will understand how to share the food so that everyone gets an equal share.
However, you can perhaps say that since I'm the boss, I should get the bigger piece or the pie, or since I've worked so hard, I should be getting more money. Those are the "philosophies".
However, it hasn't always been that way. In "primitive" societies where money hasn't been introduced, everyone gets the same amount of food in a perfectly orderly and equal way. It doesn't matter if you're the one that hunted, you still get the same amount of food as everyone else. It was the introduction of money that abstracted us away from these initial human ties and obligations. And hence, while money has made us progress a lot faster, it has also created an unequal society. So the question becomes: how to correct the error of inequality?
In the "ultimatum game" experiment where they anonymously split $100 with a complete stranger, the average split is around 6:4 all over the world.
that seems like a false notion of history, since I'm sure the guy who killed the moose or whatever got to eat as much as he wanted before handing it off to whoever. if nothing else people have different caloric requirements and you don't want to mess with that lest you ruin a hunters capacity to hunt
It's an anthropological fact that every single societies before the introduction of money was a completely equal society. They have also studied the tribes that are still active today that haven't been introduced to money yet.
I don't think this was an accident, because humans were actually quite weak compared to other animals, and were not very good hunters. Our survival depended on cooperation. In fact, the Neanderthals were much stronger than us, had around the same sized brain if not bigger, and were better hunters than us. And yet we were the ones the survived while they got extinct. Why?
Well it's quite simple, because we used our weaknesses as a strength to invent tools, such as the spear-thrower called the ahtlatl that revolutionized hunting, which allowed us long-distance hunting. It's also likely that we developed more complex speech and language skills to become more cooperative. It's likely that our language skills and inventive skills worked and evolved in tandem.
Ahtlatl:
So again, every tools that we invent is a double-edged sword, because we eventually started using the spear-thrower against each other, which created war. It's not hard to imagine that these spear-throwers eventually evolved into bows, catapults, rifles, guns, machine guns, bombs... And so we started asking ourselves, "How can we create peace between the tribes, so that we don't start a war?". Well it seems like they've already had a solution: They had a festival with their rival tribe, they invited their rival tribe for a feast, they shared the most valuable and expensive meat and perhaps they drunk beer with each other. There appears to be an archaeological evidence that they grew and used wheat for this purpose. They suspect that perhaps they used wheat to brew beer (wheat was actually very difficult to grow, so they wondered why they were so persistent in growing wheat). And that's why wheat became the "currency" in the West, while rice became the currency in the East.
just no, broIt's an anthropological fact that every single societies before the introduction of money was a completely equal society.
Embarrassing...:
Early men and women were equal, say scientists: Study shows that modern hunter-gatherer tribes operate on egalitarian basis, suggesting inequality was an aberration that came with the advent of agriculture
It's no accident that we lost our canine teeth, which could inflict serious damage on others. "Smiling" is often seen as a threatening behavior for most animals by showing their canine teeth, while for us, it's to show friendliness, as if to say "I have nothing that can harm you". Our eyes even evolved to have white sclera, so that perhaps we could easily follow another's gaze and communicate with our eyes, which is called the cooperative eye hypothesis:Mark Dyble, an anthropologist who led the study at University College London, said: “There is still this wider perception that hunter-gatherers are more macho or male-dominated. We’d argue it was only with the emergence of agriculture, when people could start to accumulate resources, that inequality emerged.”
Dyble says the latest findings suggest that equality between the sexes may have been a survival advantage and played an important role in shaping human society and evolution. “Sexual equality is one of a important suite of changes to social organisation, including things like pair-bonding, our big, social brains, and language, that distinguishes humans,” he said. “It’s an important one that hasn’t really been highlighted before.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15625720/n...yes-stand-out/
Sexual dimorphism is also pretty low among humans, which suggest that no gender physically dominate over the other. At least, not initially.
well that's ridiculous on its face because they define inequality in terms of resources that only emerged as a consequence of agriculture. its like yeah, before anyone had anything everyone was equal in terms of what we would consider a cognizable metric by today's standards. but it doesn't mean society was somehow equal, it just meant there was nothing to measure inequality in. its just an extrapolation of the model backwards, just like when we say eventually everyone will cease to exist because the model runs out with the heat death of the universe. this is the fundamental problem of not admitting as existing anything outside the accepted model. its a form of superstition in rational signs, in this case money, but takes it in a weird direction. how can we live forever with no heat! how could there be inequality prior to any form of wealth! its like they don't understand they're just being lead around by their nose and never touching reality. eventually the model will change and then itll be like reality shifted for these people, which is humorous because until that very moment they'd deny the very possibility. its like just another form of believing in dogma against all reason, except because the signs are secular its considered to be different this time. same old hyper rationalization of the unreal in order to wall out the unknown. but it makes a fool out of people, because it lacks self awareness (not to mention outer awareness), doesn't realize how silly and genuinely obtuse it all is right on its face, all because the words sound different this time around. people have been working out this sort of dogma since forever, we didn't need science to tell us that inequality as a social phenomenon began with society, and then to draw the grotesquely obvious conclusion that prior to society there was no inequality, as if this is what the enlightenment had in mind when it self applied the label. good God
tell me, how can something come from nothing..? in this case inequality. its true, there was no inequality before there were minds to cognize it. maybe humanity was a mistake. eventually if we push back inequality to the emergence of culture itself at what point does it simply become an absolutely empty assertion to talk about inequality as anything but a baseline feature of human existence, because you would have to strip everything that differentiates humans from animals to arrive back at an equal state. I agree that when we all rejoin the primordial womb there will be no inequality. people variably call this death, or heaven, or even hell. but you have simply not thought your premise through if you slice things up and don't go all the way with it. to equate consciousness of inequality with inequality itself is to define inequality as not existing prior to its rational formulation in a model, when its literally the precondition to all models. it says if we just eliminated consciousness of inequality that would take us back to an equal state, because prior to our consciousness of inequality we were equal. its literally a garden of eden myth dressed up in anthropological jargon and scientismic hubris. it tells us nothing we haven't already known for at least a few thousand years. its like you're trying to move things forward and you're several millennia behind in moral development. welcome to the conversation! I imagine you'll be a real joy when you discover the merits of capitalism, and then, oh boy, communism
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-20-2018 at 08:53 AM.
Stop writing incomprehensible gibberish.
Like I said, humans depended on cooperation for survival. If you couldn't catch food for some reason, then there were others who would help you out, and you'd do the same in return. There is growing neurological evidence for such mechanisms which would reward equality and punish inequality.
Again, it's a simple anthropological fact that hunter-gatherer societies before the introduction of money were completely egalitarian. This meant that there were:
- Social equality. Hunter-gatherers did not have hierarchical social structures. Their decision making was consensual. There was not one ‘Alpha’ to rule them all—”I’m your leader, follow me!” Rather, there were experienced men who took the initiative whenever they had the skills and knowledge relevant to a certain task—”I know where that bear is hiding and how to hunt it down, follow me!”
- Economic equality. Hunter-gatherers distributed resources (meat, nuts, fruits, honey, weapons, etc.) pretty much equally.1 And since they could not possess many things anyway as they were constantly on the move, material inequality was hardly viable.
- Moral equality. Beyond their virtue-based honor system, our prehistoric forebears had egalitarian values like autonomy, permissive childrearing, and nonviolence (although disputes over women could escalate): men were not bossed around by one entitled chief; they let their children learn through play instead of order; and they could not violently oppress any subgroup in a group where every member was constantly armed and around them.
https://www.mindcoolness.com/blog/hu...erers-equality
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...alitarian-waysThe writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers were not passively egalitarian; they were actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee, they were fiercely egalitarian.[2] They would not tolerate anyone's boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone--especially if some young man--attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown.
Which is funny, since Socionists would describe such behavior as "Delta", which allegedly came much later in human history. But it's more likely that our egalitarian ways were more or less inborn, and appeared very early in human history. So Socionists have got things backwards: There was egalitarianism first, and then appeared money, then capitalism. But it does not mean that our egalitarianism has completely banished, and that's why there are "SJW" and "The 99%" movements.
Of course, it's not as if the "Delta" people are responsible for those "egalitarianism". They are in all of us, more or less.
Philosophy does not equal relativism.
Because your example has no context, it is moot. Of course people understand 50/50 is fair when noone had to work or produce or create or use their mind to acheive either piece of the pie. You're assuming it's given as a gift.I don't think anyone will object that 50:50 or everyone having the same share of the pie, is what is considered to be "fair".
Almost everyone will intuitively understand that 50:50 is what is fair, or everyone will know how to cut the pie in a perfectly symmetrical way. Almost everyone will understand how to share the food so that everyone gets an equal share.
Who's to say inequality is an error? You're saying it is intrinsically an error, because you say so.However, it hasn't always been that way. In "primitive" societies where money hasn't been introduced, everyone gets the same amount of food in a perfectly orderly and equal way. It doesn't matter if you're the one that hunted, you still get the same amount of food as everyone else. It was the introduction of money that abstracted us away from these initial human ties and obligations. And hence, while money has made us progress a lot faster, it has also created an unequal society. So the question becomes: how to correct the error of inequality?
The reason they split it that way has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with fearing the other will refuse to let them take their "piece of the pie".In the "ultimatum game" experiment where they anonymously split $100 with a complete stranger, the average split is around 6:4 all over the world.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not btw, saying that inequality, at least extreme inequality, is not problematic. It creates resentment and bitterness in society, at least in highly urbanized socities like ours where urbanization allows us to see how our neighbours live. But this is not an argument for inequality being bad in a moral sense, simply that it creates social discord which can then be seen as a negative consequence (consequentialism).
I'm simply saying that your whole argument rests on the notion that equality is good for its own sake, which is an empty assumption, and that the examples you give are experiments in laboratories which don't prove anything about a human being's relation money and resources in real life scenarios. I think it's weird how people who dismiss philosophy and resort to science to solve the problems of philosophy are the first to be influenced by second hand philosophical notions, especially when it comes to ethics/morals.
Last edited by Ave; 08-20-2018 at 07:25 PM. Reason: typo
lets see what other social ills didn't exist in the distant past
environmental pollution didn't exist before the earth cooled
is hunter gatherer society the aspirational model of a cancer free society, since no one lived long enough to get it?
there was no such thing as a crime, because unless you believe in natural law there were no laws because there was no writing
etc
it wasn't so much that hunter-gatherer society knew perfect equality, it was they had no notion of equality at all. the idea that they all shared with one another seems silly considering how many strains of proto humans got out competed into literal extinction. oh but you say, there just wasn't enough to go around, but there is today. so at the exact moment man learned how to provide for himself he also became greedy, ok, well it works both ways, if you go back you can have "perfect" equality, but not enough to go around. it does literally zero work, because it does not solve any problem. it actually does the opposite, which is to say, society became "unequal" but the species thrived, making inequality out to be progressive, because more people live today than then. its literally the rising tide argument in reverse, but unironically. your solution is literally the thanos-infinitity-war approach to inequality. if we just dont count anyone who dies we can kill off anyone who dies from limited resources and then "share" the rest freely and we have our notion of true equality. its like if extinction is back on the table we can solve all sorts of problems that way
your entire "theory" begs the question on the flimsiest philosophical grounds and then turns around and presents itself as somehow being past "philosophical" questions. of course if you define inequality out of existence you won't find it in your example that does precisely that. but the entire thing rests on this idea that early humans knew how to share, and lived on equal terms with one another. that only holds true to the exact extent no one would want to live in such a state, i.e.: there being nothing to share to begin with. its like saying in space there are no wars over oxygen, as if that tells us anything about peace. peace, like equality, only matters after you have something worth fighting over. all those cavemen who starved because people wouldn't share apparently don't count because you defined their deaths as not being a consequence of inequality to begin with, when they're the ultimate example of inequality at work. its interesting because its a %100 philosophical argument, because it relies totally on concepts and word play, and yet calls itself anthropological as if adding a sketch of an early human transforms what amounts to a 3rd grade philosophical argument into something "scientific". its like so incredibly stupid your brain seems to have confused it with something sophisticated. its stoner philosophy dressed up as science
"but duude, what if we lived like cavemen, yeah that's the answer, you can't have inequality if you don't have stuff!"
its like bro, nothing is stopping you, go do it. the second you really decide to become a hunter gatherer you also achieve nirvana which is seeing why some inequality is actually better than the pure equality of the past, so you can't just go back for the answer to inequality, because you're only making things worse all the while deluding yourself with a juvenile faith in words that you have achieved progress. the problem is you won't ever do actually do this, and therefore understand this, because your values are just as flimsy as your "anthropology"... can we live in a better society? yes. do cavemen serve as a example of how to get there? yes! but only in the sense of appreciating the path to getting to equality is not to regress into a society where nothing is worth competing over, its in developing genuine human compassion. this idea that cavemen had this, and therefore it is a primordial quality of man, because they knew how to share is idiotic because we don't know that cavemen knew how to share, we've only derived that conclusion on the basis of there being nothing to not-share over. and somehow assumed if there were, they would have shared, when as soon as that hypothesis became testable man proved otherwise. you make a divide at this precise moment and say it caused greed, when greed was always there it just hadn't manifested yet because by definition there was not yet an opportunity to do so. you also assume no one ever slapped away another person only so they could get more at the dinner table, as if we don't see this behavior in dogs and every other mammal at a pre-scarcity stage of social development, not to mention babies, and so forth. its the most obtuse argument of all time, because it says if you never give a person an occasion to sin that makes them perfect. its a garden of eden scenario. and then literally cures the disease by killing the patient by sending them back to the garden to solve any problems. its like I could lobotomize you right now and you'd never be criminally responsible for anything ever again. is this the cure for all crime? have we cracked the code?
if at the earliest available opportunity man manifested greed, is it fair to say the opportunity caused greed or that man was always chomping at the bit? therefore to suggest that caveman society is illustrative of a better social order is %100 illusory, because those same cavemen would be shitheads today, probably worse actually, and therefore adopting their lifestyle in order to achieve equality is really just another form of sending people to a gulag. it basically says if we take everything of value from everyone they will be forced to behave, when its like, sure--you give up all your shit first. you've literally discovered Christianity (2000 years late and with an extra chromosome) but it still only means something if people do it willingly
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-20-2018 at 03:08 PM.
neanderthal didn't really extinct, they interbred with homo sapiens, same for all the other minor unknown populations.
Communication was a mistake?
ThosePoLRs knew it all along..
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
it's all about language innit
lol @ "oh there weren't computers 10,000 years ago! then what did humans know about equality!? u dumbos, civility was created in 1492. those natives sure had no idea what fairness is".
brief reminder that humanity has a 500,000 years old history of which we know less than a tiny 0,5 %....
You guys are missing the point.
The hunter-gatherer society was simply what was evolutionarily advantageous, and it's what "worked" and survived over time. Humans were weak, they were not good hunters, so they were forced to cooperate, and from cooperation, the notion of fairness and equality were inevitable. So instead of evolving stronger claws or jaws, or bigger muscles, we evolved toward even greater mutual cooperation. In fact, weaker jaws were a requirement for bigger brains, since the less muscle required for the jaw would mean bigger the cranium (it's not possible to have big brains while having strong jaw muscles). We are not "man for himself", individually, we are incredibly weak. It's doubtful that any one man can survive in the wild all by himself.
Those are what made us human. The society that we have now would not be possible without our ability to cooperate on a grand scale. We are the only species on this planet that can have such deep and integrated levels of cooperation.
And so is money. It would not have been possible to have this society without money, since money is what made us progress at such a phenomenal speed, and money is what allowed us to excel (over the others). It's also not possible to integrate at such an abstract level, where you can trade with people that you don't personally know. But of course, money is not without problems, because it would inevitably create inequality, the wealth disparity and the class divide. And so we look for solutions to the problems that money would eventually bring. And you know, they already had solutions: The Sumerians in the 3000 BC called it the Amagi (which literally means "returning to mother" - in this context people who couldn't pay their debt were sold as slaves and they were separated from their mothers, and so the amagi returned the child to the mother, and the mother to the child), they periodically wiped out the debt of those who couldn't pay. No doubt that we'd be looking for more of such solutions as the wealth disparity and inequality increases in our modern society. Or perhaps we'd be looking back to such solutions as the amagi.
And it's not surprising that things like the welfare system is like the give-and-take system of the hunter-gatherer society. If you didn't have any resources today, then there was someone else who would help you out, and you'd do the same in return.
And so to get back to the topic, the Internet is a doubled-edged sword just like money or hunting weapons. In fact, every single tools that we create is a potential double-edged sword. It can benefit us and it can also harm us. So we would need to be looking for their solutions.
why even bother posting at all if that is your point? what have you added to the discussion if everything is nothing but an illusory shifting of the set point in what amounts to nothing more than perfectly balanced tradeoffs? implicit in making the effort is the idea that that tradeoff is worth it somehow, and yet you go on to deny the possibility of progress via movement of tradeoffs in a certain direction. don't you see how juvenile and empty that makes everything you say and do. life is a performative contradiction, ok got it, that is the essence of freedom and ethics, now what will you do about it? to return everything back to non contradiction in the way you have outlined is just a ghoulish touch of death. ironically clothed in some smug sense of superiority. its like get out of here, you mummy, you're not helping you're just gross right now
Well there goes "arguing" with Bertrand. The man is truly insane and incapable of having rational discussions.
I liked the historical comparisons, Singu, thanks for sharing. The problem with prehistory is that we miss a lot of details on how people were living their lives, without a written language to testify for them we can only attempt to reconstruct what sort of society these prehistoric men were living in. The traces left behind, in some cases, are very particular, shedding light onto worlds that seem completely alien to us, worlds that nevertheless, we made of flesh and bones and carrying the same genes, have experienced as necessary processes in our timely evolution. The concept of origin gets lost in time, but it takes a shape through all the "others" that made "me". If we're anything, it's always because of these others... It's good to remember what we're made of when we want to progress.
I think the most significant thing about this is that, the Socionics' version of human history is completely false.
The anthropological, archaeological and evolutionary biological version of human history went something like this:
1) Egalitarianism -> 2) Introduction of currency (wheat/rice > silver & gold coins > printed money) -> 3) Accumulation of wealth/power (kings & queens, emperors, Feudalism, generals & armies) -> (short-lived democracy in Athens) -> 4) Modern dictatorship (WWI&II, Nationalism, Communism) -> 5) Modern democracy
What Socionics call "Delta" egalitarianism was present very early in human history during the hunter-gatherer society, and certainly a small percentage of "Delta" people weren't somehow responsible for this. Also obviously that it's the accumulation of wealth that creates power, so somehow "Se" alone can't be responsible for creating power by themselves by forcing others (after all, you'd need some sort of GAINS for maintaining power, and that comes in the form of paying and compensating to those who would share the power with you).
Socionics version of human history tells us that it went something like this:
1) Vague and nebulous idyllic state of primitive human interactions -> 2) Sudden violent takeover of power by a small minority group. Feudalism, dictatorship -> 3) Money, capitalism, democracy -> 4) Advanced and progressive state of a perfected, egalitarian state
Which is obviously and undoubtedly, completely false. There's just so much overwhelming evidence against it.
socionics version of history is just about group and personal dynamics at various levels, its not a scientific theory about what literally caused behavior. it doesn't set out to do that, instead it captures patterns of personality in the actors and says groups can also exhibit these patterns. its not a static causal hypothesis to begin with; "history" is itself an early form of narrative not a scientific cause/effect determinism. its like saying romanticism is false because romanticism doesn't provide a scientific causal explanation of every event from 1800-1850. herodotus wasn't offering a scientific theory of the Peloponnesian war. that doesn't mean he didn't contribute to the scheme of human understanding. nor did prevailing cultural forces control the actions of every single individual or group within a broader society the way a circuit controls a computer. personality is not a determinism so your nested premise that it is, and that history contra indicates that, builds in a refutation but only on the basis of having implicitly defined socionics as something its not. basically you're continually strawmanning socionics thinking you've somehow refuted it, but you've only refuted your personal distortion of it.
personality is precisely a way of looking at behavior that is more than a simply mechanistic theory of action, so every time you come back and say "look it fails to explain this or that, like a mechanism"--is never the coup de grace you present it to be. its a fundamental misunderstanding, on your part, of what its trying to do in the first place. its like you're almost there, because you recognize socionics can't possibly be true according to that metric, but instead of realizing thats not its aim, you just think people really are that dumb and are trying to do exactly what is obvious can't be done, which is really just a form of uncharitable egoism (not to mention out of touch with the fact that there exist people smarter than you). consider for a moment that because its so obvious, your characterization of their aim might be off. if you fail to address that possibility, all you've done is define them as wrong at the onset. in other words, you're applying normative assumptions to individual cases, without realizing that things can be exceptions to the norm and not be wrong--they can be better. this is how advancement occurs. humorously enough, actual science understands this, which makes you out to be something of a scientist nut hugger and not a real scientist anyway
by your reasoning every paradigm shift or add-on that expanded the scope of human knowledge would have been invalid because it did not conform to the pre existing structure of what was known at the time prior to the expansion of human understanding. its an overly static view of knowledge because it simply says if you're not abiding by the established rules of the game you're obviously trying to but simply failing, without acknowledging the possibility of an idea advancing the rules themselves via a contribution that is fundamentally new. you can throw out every interpretation but a material scientific one of human development, but all it does is flatten out human experience, it does not actually promote knowledge, its a kind of stereotyping all its own. it essentially picks this point in time to set the dimensions of what is possible and rules out anything that does not fit into it from the onset, as if, for whatever reason, we are at this very moment capable of doing such a thing, although apparently we weren't in the past, and we won't in the future either, by implication. no the rules as we understand them today are the rules that will forever govern, and further, we have the absolutely correct interpretation of those rules today and thus for all time. this assumption is nothing but a prejudice that massively flattens the picture of the world. it makes me think this is what Nietzsche meant when he called the English "flatheaded"
its like, by all means, build in a series of norms to evaluate theories but to exclude on the basis of these norms everything outside of them is only a slow slide into substituting reality for a series of zeros and ones and thinks because you can comprehend it in that way, its true (and everything else is false), when that entire mode of being ignores that people already comprehend in its fullness precisely that which you have to reduce in order to get a rudimentary handle on. thus for you to say this is "better" and the alternatives are "false" is only a statement about your own limitations and never really touches the world. when I say it flattens the world I mean it shoehorns the picture of all possible knowledge into a range of normative assumptions aimed at keeping out "junk" knowledge, but it entails the collateral exclusion of revolutionary knowledge if you can't admit those same norms also clamp the high side of possibilities, as if better is simply not possible and that your current understanding of science is sufficient to judge the full range of all possible truth now and forever. even Einstein believed in a God of some kind, but you would come in here and dismiss the belief as childish and obviously false, as if nothing could ever exceed this grand scheme which sets the boundaries on all possible knowledge, and as such anything that falls outside of it must be deficient by definition, which is simply arrogant and stupid. it also makes a mockery of history which gives us nothing but examples to the contrary. thus your view on history itself becomes a kind of retroactive imperial march on reframing the past itself into its own little self satisfied scheme. ultimately it becomes obvious that this faith in its own "rationality" and words is its own kind of religion in the historical sense, and that insight into you is just as valid and enlightening a premise as the "The anthropological, archaeological and evolutionary biological version of human history".. one begins to think future people will look back on this phase of history and think this aforementioned version of "history" was nothing but primitivism and superstition in a 21st century instantiation, practiced by a certain species of the ironically devout stuck in denial of their own religiosity... not exactly the dispensation of absolute truth those same people today take it to be. it says, "everyone else was wrong but now we've got it", and because we're so sure, we're not going to admit anything could be better, thus anything different must be worse. as if this hasn't been the attitude of ignorant people since time immemorial
in short pointing out that socionics does not strictly conform to an anthropological understanding of human history is precisely what makes it better, not worse. anthropology, according to singu anyway, since he is by no means a pure representative of the field, is loaded with its own ideological and psychological assumptions that hamstring its ability to grasp the subject matter in a comprehensive fashion. to take this limitation as grounds to "refute" socionics is backward, and fits the same pattern of repression galileo himself faced when attempting to advance the boundaries of human understanding in his own time. in this case the name science was handed down, as if it sanctifies the actors, and not that things work the other way around. "science" can be just as much a farce, an untruth, in the same way religion became discredited by failing to live up to its own best standards. in other words, every good idea strangled in the crib is cause for galileo to roll in his grave. it doesn't matter that the stranglers think themselves justified under the banner of science any more than Jesus would have sanctioned the acts of the spanish inquisiton
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-22-2018 at 07:11 AM.
I never knew socionics had an interpretation of history...
In any case, I agree with @Bertrand that history was never meant to be about just repeating facts in a literal sense, it's about narrative, since history is always written by the victors. That isn't to say the facts in history books are wrong, they aeren't, just that there is more to history than stating facts, it's really about their interpretation.
So any scientific interpretation of historical events or phases of history will also convey a certain narrative and certain values.
Again, I repeat: it is those that swear only by science that seem the most influenced by religion and philosophy, especially when it comes to moral or ethical questions...
A popular idea in the psych circles is that prehistoric people had a different consciousness, namely a collective one, and they were probably lacking an ego, their sense of individual self; since they had to rely on each other for survival, it followed that they would treat anyone in their own group equally, everyone was a necessary part. But greed is a trait exhibited by various animals, an (over)compensation for one's individual needs, and it doesn't come from what you possess, but from what you can possess, so that potentially it can be all sort of things.
On the other end, I think that every animal has a somewhat developed sense of self, and so every human too, but it's inside a society's constitution that the individuals shape themselves. If I live in function of the people close to me, I'll be able to place their needs on the same level as mine; if I live independently, in a society that allows me to fulfill my needs alone, my sense of community, my sense of self will be very different from the first scenario.
More than western democracy, today it's technocracy to have the upper hand, we are not working collectively in function of people (democracy= people's power), today's global system is centered around virtual functions, overproduction, profit. This scenario was foreseen by some enlightened people over a century ago when talking about alienation.
Another important point is that socionics deals with generalizations, if it's already difficult to find accuracy for a type= an individual, you can figure how much more inaccurate it will be to extend such schemes to billions of people through the millennia.
Well you see, it doesn't even make sense to look at history from the Socionics' point of view, because you can't quite explain anything through Socionics.
When we're looking at history, we're trying to explain it from an evolutionary point of view. What was advantageous to the organism? How did it help it survive? How did it change over time? Things like "selfishness" or "egalitarianism" can't even be explained without evolution.
How can you explain anything through Socionics? Supposedly there was Alpha first... and then what? It doesn't explain anything. Things like "Ti" and "Ne" are just based on observations of the people in the present. But how can we apply what is present to what was prior? None of this even make any sense.
And since Socionics necessarily rejects science, nothing ever quite make any sense, when you look at it from the Socionics point of view. You can't use the theory of evolution to explain human history. And evolution is pretty much everything.
ZOMG INTERNETZ ARE EVIL AND CORRUPT THE YOUTH!!!
You've been had, people. You've been had, very, very, very hard.
You may well have been played by the very people attempting to destroy the internet, for no reason but their own profit.
The internet is just another example of innovation that originated under military pretenses and evolved into a social phenomenon. The U.S. government originally conceived of the "ARPNET", intending to create a system of communication that could tolerate nuclear holocausts and other large-scale attacks on U.S. soil. Now, we have the internet, a reservoir for cat pictures and porn.
Mistake? Not Mistake? Unintentional wonder of human achievement?
You be the judge.
I love how you somehow managed to drag the disparity between socionics and science into this thread, of all places. Never change, Singu.
I don't understand why the blame is being pinned on the internet as if it's the only vehicle in history to spread propaganda meanwhile I doubt many people in the past had access to information about the outside world except for whatever (mis)information whoever ran the country at the time was feeding them - at least with the internet, not all but some of us have access to a wider variety of information from contradictory sources (if you search hard enough). it's hard to say if we're that much more fucked up now than we were before since we only have access to information written and distributed by a small number of people who had the proper education and level of prominence in society to write about their thoughts and experiences, and there's probably a lot more information by such people we no longer have access to because it was "lost". I think it's more accurate to say that some neuroses were mitigated while other neuroses were amplified by the introduction of the internet. either we're going to be fed this (mis)information by carrier pigeon, word of mouth, newspapers, or the internet - it doesn't matter, it's the same shit, and it's probably going to extend to other supposedly dubious sources of information in the future.
I think the main issue with the internet is that it creates an "identity-split" (I don't know the correct term for this) wherein people exist on two different planes - real life and cyber world. there's an equivalent term in the workplace called "emotional dissonance" wherein employees have to stifle their natural emotions in order to correspond to whichever rules exist in their workplace (i.e. customer yells at you, but you have to remain congenial even though you'd rather cry, walk away, or stand up for yourself) and it's similar with the internet in the sense that someone could be experiencing significant emotional or psychological distress in response to something that happened on the internet, but if there are external demands in the real world which require their immediate attention, then it's not always possible to work through it naturally, and sometimes the reverse is also true. I don't think this is a new phenomena and I'm sure it's existed in the past in a different form, but that's my primary issue with the internet, and there is the issue of privacy as well. I just don't think it's enough to consider the internet a "mistake", and this is just a general response to the critiques I've read about the existence of the internet over the years.
I kind of think its a good thing people can live out an alter ego online, but I agree in the perfect world they shouldn't and wouldn't have to..but I think its symptomatic of broader societal problems, not their cause, at least not their original cause, it is probably true that this split exacerbates some problems, but it also functions as a release valve for a lot of pressure
nah, I'm not referring to alter egos, but "identity-split" probably wasn't the best term to describe what I meant.
I'm referring to the natural responses we have to negative experiences we've had on the internet. for example, I know when my brothers were younger, they used to get angry while playing video games because someone on the other team pissed them off, and they'd carry this anger with them for a few hours - which doesn't bode well for them when they've got other commitments in real life - and I've noticed a similar transference occur in playthroughs on youtube. their responses are no less real than responses they might have in real life, but they don't always have an appropriate outlet for those responses - or it's not the right time or place because what happened online doesn't always coincide with what's happening in real life, so they have to stifle their natural responses in favor of adopting a deportment that does coincide with what's happening in real life, and that's where the split occurs.
with that said - like I mentioned in my previous post - I think the internet has mitigated preexisting neuroses on top of amplifying preexisting neuroses, which is why I can't consider the internet a "mistake" because there's just as much good as there is bad, and the good and bad would probably exist in different forms even if the internet didn't exist.
btw since we're on the internet I recommend the 16types.info (San Serif) theme to whoever likes aesthetically pleasing posts
i made some leaps but in general my point is that a dissociation in the culture, like left/right echo chambers result ultimately from the dissociation in individuals. the internet is a platform to express that dissociated side that isn't allowed out in other ways, that it tends to aggregate itself into groups is just a downrange consequence. in the end the internet makes it possible (to the extent it happens on the internet), but the reason its not all bad is because it allows people to express themselves in a way they feel they need to, regardless of whether we consider it more or less true in light of their "real" identity. that they feel the need to do this at all does not arise as a consequence of the internet, to illustrate my point I would say there exists the possibility of the internet without this behavior, so we can't say the internet is causing it.. rather this division runs deeper. in essence to lay this stuff at the feet of the internet does not address the root cause and only drives those controlling forces deeper by eliminating one avenue of expression. it would inevitably come to the surface in other ways, and if the solution to that is further repression eventually it will result in violence. so although the internet may in some sense be a conduit for the violent or proto-violent urges of people, it is in no way the cause
who are you arguing with bertrand because based on what I've written and what you just wrote, we seem to be on the same page (more or less)
sorry i tried and failed apparently to indicate that with my constructive comment, i should have been more explicit, but yes we agree
Persona?
nope - read my second post on this thread and hopefully it'll make more sense. I don't think "identity-split" was the best term to use.
Well actually the moment I brought "science" into it, it created an obvious incompatibility between science and Socioniocs. You cannot believe in both Socionics and science at the same time.
It just amazes me how this incongruence and the obvious contradictions in Socionics goes over some people's heads. They probably wouldn't even have noticed it, had I not mentioned it.
that is like the age old argument where its like you can't believe the bible and science at the same time, as if they don't describe the world in two completely separate albeit potentially complimentary ways.. socionics actually accounts for this in terms of subjectivism v objectivism, among other things. if you take science to be the absolute truth, then yes even duality itself or complimentariness in relationships is a myth, at least until it comes under the banner of science in some way. the idea that "I won't believe anything until its objectively proven" sounds principled on its face but in reality it just makes you a one dimensional joke of a human being. imagine how such a person is bound to their time frame like an animal... they are the ultimate culturally conditioned animals--and they parade this around like some kind of triumph! they havent transcended bias so much as imbibed it so thoroughly they've forgotten the prevailing laws can themselves be a product of collective bias. they are simply the ultimate mass-men who have deluded themselves into thinking they somehow think for themself, when they in fact do the opposite at all times. their individuality has completely receded into nothing but a bible of contemporary cliches and yet because the formal words profess antagonism toward religion they think it isn't so, as if what you call it matters when its nothing but the sheen you put on your own brand of slavish devotion to the prevailing creed
It's not even about subjectivity vs objectivity. This whole false misconception of subjectivity vs objectivity, as in Ti vs Te, is a creation of Socionics, which is based on an outdated early 20th century philosophy (which is the era Jung lived in), which the debate has already been settled.
"Objectivity" doesn't mean stereotypical things like just "facts" or "figures" or other "science-y" things that people might think of. What is a fact? Is it something that is written on Encyclopedia? But if you trace back all the "sources", then where would that lead? You'd notice that it would only lead to an infinite regress.
So "science" had done away with all of that, as it's pointless to rely on "facts", which is just another way of relying on an authority of some kind. "Objectivity" is actually an explanation that lies outside of the very thing that is supposed to be explaining. It's as if the explanation is looking from the outside, because something can't explain itself. That would be more or less a subjective explanation.
It might also have to do with reproducibility. So science doesn't say "show me the facts", instead it says "show me how it can be reproduced". This doesn't create the problem of an infinite regress that comes with relying on "facts".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
