Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 80 of 80

Thread: Race & Impact on Personality Types

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christy B View Post
    Whoa. This is a real jem right here.

    What you mean is not "race" but "population". Still a pretty crazy thing to say.
    What are you talking about? What exactly is a crazy thing to say?

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    854
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    What are you talking about? What exactly is a crazy thing to say?
    The bit I quoted.
    EII 4w5

    so/sx (?)

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christy B View Post
    The bit I quoted.
    Okay, now I understand what you were getting at, but your interpretation is incorrect. I don't mean population. I don't mean the group of people that happens to live in a certain area of the world. I mean groups of people that can be identified through their genetical differences, which of course to a large extent are the result of having lived in the same region of the world for several generations.

    What is controversial about this? Nothing should be. We know that there are fundamental genetical differences that explain why some groups of people with a coloured skin have a natural advantage in some sports, like trying to run 100 metres the fast as you can. I don't know of any physical sport where white people would have a natural advantage over black people, but maybe there is.

    I don't know of any mental sport where it is obvious that one of these two groups of people would have a natural advantage over the other, but that can't be ruled out either before we have empirical evidence to support such a radical view. It is radical to assume that there are no significant differences between different races, because it is of course much more likely that there are such differences than that there aren't.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Okay, now I understand what you were getting at, but your interpretation is incorrect. I don't mean population. I don't mean the group of people that happens to live in a certain area of the world. I mean groups of people that can be identified through their genetical differences, which of course to a large extent are the result of having lived in the same region of the world for several generations.

    What is controversial about this? Nothing should be. We know that there are fundamental genetical differences that explain why some groups of people with a coloured skin have a natural advantage in some sports, like trying to run 100 metres the fast as you can. I don't know of any physical sport where white people would have a natural advantage over black people, but maybe there is.

    I don't know of any mental sport where it is obvious that one of these two groups of people would have a natural advantage over the other, but that can't be ruled out either before we have empirical evidence to support such a radical view. It is radical to assume that there are no significant differences between different races, because it is of course much more likely that there are such differences than that there aren't.
    This is madness. Take it outside of General Discussion, if you must discuss it at all. We're walking down the path of Francis Crick here, and he has been disgraced for a reason.

    Truth be told, this debate is an extension of ******'s own philosophy. It was he who in Mein Kampf hypothesized that some races were more "inventive" than others.

    rmcnew, what do you think? Should we let this thread stand, or should we close it? These ideas are only fodder for the psychologically unhealthy. What do the rest of you say? Gilly, UDP, Jxrtres, Logos, Cone, Implied, Diana, and everyone else. Is the right thing going to be done here, or are we going to just look the other way in the face of a corrupting evil?

    As for the liberal/conservatism article....
    http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodio/
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 05-10-2008 at 11:28 PM.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Seems like certain types are more common through race. how does culture influence this?
    You've yet to give us evidence of the above claim. Thus, why should we even ponder how culture influences it?

  6. #46
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,814
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is no reason to assume that types aren't evenly distributed. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. MBTI test results are useless because they're two different systems and the people might be mistyped under that system anyway.

    I have one word for Phaedrus. RANDOM. Sometimes things are random, or have an element of randomness in them. Types could be completely random, or partially genetic and partially random, or have some other partial biological cause and be partially random, etc. I'd believe they were 100% random before I'd believe that Asians are generally some given type.
    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.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    This is madness. Take it outside of General Discussion, if you must discuss it at all. We're walking down the path of Francis Crick here, and he has been disgraced for a reason.
    Are you a lunatic, tcaudilllg? Or what is the matter with you? Why can't you handle the truth? You attitude here is nothing but pathetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Truth be told, this debate is an extension of ******'s own philosophy. It was he who in Mein Kampf hypothesized that some races were more "inventive" than others.
    I have just lost almost all my respect for your intellectual capacity. Maybe you are just a total fake, like Hegel. Don't you understand the logical difference between a fact and a value judgment? I am only discussion empirical facts here, I am not saying anything about the value of these facts. These empirical facts regarding differences between groups of people have no logical impact whatsoever on how we shall treat those people.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    rmcnew, what do you think? Should we let this thread stand, or should we close it? These ideas are only fodder for the psychologically unhealthy. What do the rest of you say? Gilly, UDP, Jxrtres, Logos, Cone, Implied, Diana, and everyone else. Is the right thing going to be done here, or are we going to just look the other way in the face of a corrupting evil?
    Burn all books that are expressing ideas that don't fit your system! Censor every discussion that threatens your feel of security! Curse the objective truth and replace it with ideological dogmatism!

    You attitude here, tcaudilllg, is so morally wrong and so totally disgusting that there are no words for it. It's an extremely typical example of leading when it is showing it's very worst side to the world. I hate this pukeworthy narrow-mindedness of leading types. Your attitude is intellectually dishonest, it is a disgrace to truth and a scientific attitude of mind. Basically it is a fascist attitude that stands opposed to everything that is good and true. You want to replace the independent search for truth with the use of power to impose your own subjective ideology on society.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Are you a lunatic, tcaudilllg? Or what is the matter with you? Why can't you handle the truth? You attitude here is nothing but pathetic.


    I have just lost almost all my respect for your intellectual capacity. Maybe you are just a total fake, like Hegel. Don't you understand the logical difference between a fact and a value judgment? I am only discussion empirical facts here, I am not saying anything about the value of these facts. These empirical facts regarding differences between groups of people have no logical impact whatsoever on how we shall treat those people.


    Burn all books that are expressing ideas that don't fit your system! Censor every discussion that threatens your feel of security! Curse the objective truth and replace it with ideological dogmatism!

    You attitude here, tcaudilllg, is so morally wrong and so totally disgusting that there are no words for it. It's an extremely typical example of leading when it is showing it's very worst side to the world. I hate this pukeworthy narrow-mindedness of leading types. Your attitude is intellectually dishonest, it is a disgrace to truth and a scientific attitude of mind. Basically it is a fascist attitude that stands opposed to everything that is good and true. You want to replace the independent search for truth with the use of power to impose your own subjective ideology on society.
    Your beliefs are founded on lies and mistruths. Every day you partake of miracles that were made possible only by the use of subjective truth in the face of uncertainty.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Your beliefs are founded on lies and mistruths. Every day you partake of miracles that were made possible only by the use of subjective truth in the face of uncertainty.
    Now it is a proven fact -- you really are one of Hegel's disciples. Such incredible mumbo-jumbo, such disgusting misuse of languge ... "the use of subjective truth in the face of uncertainty ... such total intellectual crap ...

    Where is Schopenhauer when you need him?

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Now it is a proven fact -- you really are one of Hegel's disciples. Such incredible mumbo-jumbo, such disgusting misuse of languge ... "the use of subjective truth in the face of uncertainty ... such total intellectual crap ...

    Where is Schopenhauer when you need him?
    Dead, obviously.

    Your problem is that you can't see the truth in other people's views. You can't accept that whatever their views, they each have a unique psychological perspective that leads to distinct form of truth.

    The only way to judge such truth is its applicability on a large scale? Will it or will it not lead to effective adaptation to objective conditions? Will it or will it not support the growth of life?

    Your truth cannot, and I see... no, I will not say it. It is true that I have basis for what I see... but it not socially acceptable. I will only predict... that 40 years hence, you will face your lie, and see it for the objective dishonesty it truly is.

  11. #51
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Burn all books that are expressing ideas that don't fit your system! Censor every discussion that threatens your feel of security! Curse the objective truth and replace it with ideological dogmatism!

    You attitude here, tcaudilllg, is so morally wrong and so totally disgusting that there are no words for it. It's an extremely typical example of leading when it is showing it's very worst side to the world. I hate this pukeworthy narrow-mindedness of leading types. Your attitude is intellectually dishonest, it is a disgrace to truth and a scientific attitude of mind. Basically it is a fascist attitude that stands opposed to everything that is good and true. You want to replace the independent search for truth with the use of power to impose your own subjective ideology on society.
    Your misunderstanding of (especially leading- in this case) is so horrendous it is not even funny, well maybe a little funny.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Your problem is that you can't see the truth in other people's views. You can't accept that whatever their views, they each have a unique psychological perspective that leads to distinct form of truth.
    With almost every comment you make you are proving one of my general type theses: that LIIs tend to be self-refuting relativists. You are one of the most obvious examples of such an intellectual meltdown. Every form of relativism is necessarily either false (because it is self-refuting) or trivial. It is sad to see that you are an advocate of the former kind of relativism, which means that you are simply stupid. To attribute logical reasoning to is an insult to logic itself. I can't believe that people are so unable to see the obvious differences between your idiotic perspective and my perspective.

    Your stance here is a typcial example of Reinin's Subjectivism. My stance is a typical example of Reinin's Objectivism. Every single member of this forum must be able to recognize this simple and extremely obvious fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    The only way to judge such truth is its applicability on a large scale? Will it or will it not lead to effective adaptation to objective conditions? Will it or will it not support the growth of life?
    This is a disgusting form of Subjectivism. Relativism is a plague. We should to our best to get rid of it. You don't understand the concept of truth, and you don't realize that your position is logically contradictory. How much worse can it get?

  13. #53
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    With almost every comment you make you are proving one of my general type theses: that LIIs tend to be self-refuting relativists. You are one of the most obvious examples of such an intellectual meltdown. Every form of relativism is necessarily either false (because it is self-refuting) or trivial. It is sad to see that you are an advocate of the former kind of relativism, which means that you are simply stupid. To attribute logical reasoning to is an insult to logic itself. I can't believe that people are so unable to see the obvious differences between your idiotic perspective and my perspective.

    Your stance here is a typcial example of Reinin's Subjectivism. My stance is a typical example of Reinin's Objectivism. Every single member of this forum must be able to recognize this simple and extremely obvious fact.

    This is a disgusting form of Subjectivism. Relativism is a plague. We should to our best to get rid of it. You don't understand the concept of truth, and you don't realize that your position is logically contradictory. How much worse can it get?
    Fact or value judgment?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Fact or value judgment?
    Fact. And you know it if you have studied the Reinin dichotomies, which can and should be understood by every type.

  15. #55
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Fact. And you know it if you have studied the Reinin dichotomies, which can and should be understood by every type.
    You are trying to turn your own unempirical value judgment into a fact.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  16. #56

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    You are trying to turn your own unempirical value judgment into a fact.
    No. I am trying to make a value judgment based on the fact that LIIs are Subjectivists and ILIs are Objectvists. I don't respect our differences. I can't stand relativism in any form, and Subjectivism is a form of relativism, so I am kind of allergic to Subjectivism itself and the kind of world view that is typical of LIIs. Even though LIIs can't help that they are Subjectivists, it is objectively wrong to think like an LII. The thinking of an LII like tcaudilllg is logically incoherent, and we should never accept logical contradictions in our explanations or views on reality.

  17. #57
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    No. I am trying to make a value judgment based on the fact that LIIs are Subjectivists and ILIs are Objectvists. I don't respect our differences. I can't stand relativism in any form, and Subjectivism is a form of relativism, so I am kind of allergic to Subjectivism itself and the kind of world view that is typical of LIIs. Even though LIIs can't help that they are Subjectivists, it is objectively wrong to think like an LII. The thinking of an LII like tcaudilllg is logically incoherent, and we should never accept logical contradictions in our explanations or views on reality.
    You have warped views of Socionics.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  18. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Phaedrus: you've yet to corroborate with regard to the liberal/conservative brain study I linked to (by linking to its lead researcher's website).

  19. #59

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    You have warped views of Socionics.
    They are correct, so what is your point?

  20. #60
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,814
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    No. I am trying to make a value judgment based on the fact that LIIs are Subjectivists and ILIs are Objectvists. I don't respect our differences. I can't stand relativism in any form, and Subjectivism is a form of relativism, so I am kind of allergic to Subjectivism itself and the kind of world view that is typical of LIIs. Even though LIIs can't help that they are Subjectivists, it is objectively wrong to think like an LII. The thinking of an LII like tcaudilllg is logically incoherent, and we should never accept logical contradictions in our explanations or views on reality.
    And he thinks he's the dual of an ESFp. ROFL
    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.

  21. #61

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom View Post
    And he thinks he's the dual of an ESFp. ROFL
    No. I don't think so, I know it for a fact.

  22. #62
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    @Loki, you invite a conversation perhaps from Phaedrus that beauty is indeed objective (haha, memories Phaedrus )

  23. #63
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    They are correct, so what is your point?
    You believe that you know that they are correct, but it has yet to be empirically seen.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  24. #64

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    You believe that you know that they are correct, but it has yet to be empirically seen.
    You are free to pursue your own research in order to confirm them or try to falsify them. In fact, I am inviting you to do it.

  25. #65

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Ugh. Meh. Reading this entire discussion is annoying.
    Read the thread http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=18671 and maybe you will understand a few more things about the differences in perspective between LIIs and ILIs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    Phaedrus, is there any way you could expand your horizons? You appear to only recognize your own point of view.
    Is there any way that you could expand yours? I have thought about almost every possible view you can have for ages. It has taken me some 20 years or so to examine all the arguments on each side, but some day you will arrive at a conclusion on which of all the possible perspectives is the correct one. It has not been an easy path to walk, but now I am finally standing at some sort of secure foundation. I'm not sure it was worth all the effort, but I had no choice. I have always had a pathological need to seek the objective truth no matter what it will cost me in effort or suffering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    You are an absolutist in that you think that everything there is to think about (every view, every idea, every piece of information, every concept, etc.) must be either entirely correct (true) or entirely incorrect (false). This is the way in which you seem to think. As such you only recognize what is "objective."
    Yes. And that attitude I share with several famous philosophers. If you don't have it, you will probably not persist long enough. You will more likely give up somewhere along the way and never arrive at the truth at the end of the road. Like Ludwig Wittgenstein, I have to understand or die.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    As you have said before 2+2=4 is an objective truth, in that at every time in every possible universe, this is always true. Thus you can say that 2+2=4 is a fact, a truth in the universe.
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    This works fine for something like 2+2=4 (though I'm sure someone on Earth could come up with an ingenious argument about why that doesn't hold true in every possible universe at every possible time, but never mind that... I don't have an issue with saying that 2+2=4 is an objective truth... close enough). This doesn't work so well for other things though...
    That 2+2=4 is a truth in every possible world is an objective fact that we cannot doubt, but there are other objective truths that can be doubted. But the fact that they can be doubted is no argument against them being objectively true. And even though they may be objective truths, we may not be in a position to know that they are objective truths. There is a crucial and fundamental logical difference between an objective truth and a known objective truth. Truth is not the same thing as knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    For instance, if someone were to say "Nicole Kidman is beautiful" perhaps you would also try to analyze that objectively.
    Yes, I have analayzed a lot of similar statements made by others and myself. I have thought a lot about objective beauty. I have spent many years on that specific problem, partly as the result of an intense interest in Robert M. Pirsig's books Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila. I wrote a university paper on the first book in 1992.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    The statement can either be absolutely true or absolutely false in your view (correct?).
    Yes. Assuming that the statement is correctly formed and have a meaning according to the rules of language. Strictly speaking it is propositions that have a truth value, and statements are the "package" through which propositions are expressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    So we would have to break down the entity "Nicole Kidman" and figure out what we mean by that and then apply the objective criteria of beauty to see if the statement either is or is not true.
    Yes, exactly. And in order to do that, we first must determine whether objective truth exists or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    "Nicole Kidman is beautiful" could be an example of a subjective truth.
    No. There are no subjective truths. Either the statement "Nicole Kidman is beautiful" has a truth value or it doesn't have a truth value. If it has a truth value, and if it also happens to be a true statement, then it is objectively true that Nicole Kidman is beautiful. It could of course, hypothetically, be the case that Nicole Kidman is not objectively beautiful. If the statement "Nicole Kidman is beautiful" does not have a truth value, then it does not express a proposition. Some philosophers argue for such a position, often on the grounds that value statements are really nothing but expressions of a feeling or some sort of recommendation on which attitude to adopt towards, in this case, Nicole Kidman. If those philosophers are right, then the statement about Nicole Kidmans beauty would belong to the same group of language expressions as, for example: "Oh!", "Hot!", "Nice!", "Shit!", "", "", "LOOOOOLLLLL!!!!!", etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    The person stating it finds whatever they call Nicole Kidman to be beautiful at that particular instant in time. It's a "truth" in that it is "a fact of their reality" or "describes their reality" in that moment... It is subjective in that beauty is itself subjective.
    No. What you try to say is that the person likes the look of Nicole Kidman. The person is, in that case, only trying to express a certain attitude towards Nicole Kidman, not stating a fact about an objective quality that Kidman might, or might not, have. If the person is really making a statement about the beauty of Nicole Kidman, then the positive feelings or the the attitude that the person might have towards her are irrelevant. They are irrelevant, because if Nicole Kidman really is beautiful, then nothing you do or nothing you feel can change that fact. Even if you would hate the look of Kidman, she would, in that hypothetical case, be objectively beautiful anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    If we were to get every human on the planet together to come up with an objective criteria of beauty that they all agree upon without compromising their own changing views on what is beautiful, no agreement could ever be reached.
    Totally incorrect. Such criteria have already been established. There is a very clear general pattern in what people find beautiful, and that pattern has been confirmed in many empirical studies. How attractive a person really is, or how attractive people perceive her to be anyway, can literally be measured by a ruler and a calculator. The Golden Ratio is a mathematical relation that can be used to measure the degree of beauty in people to some extent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    Even an individual person would not be able to agree with him/herself on what this criteria is some time later. You could say that all these people haven't studied aesthetics enough and haven't truly explored beauty enough and that's why they are unable to find the one true objective criteria of beauty. After all you know what it is, and you could enlighten them all if they'd just subscribe to your view on the matter. But though a few of them might because they're sick of thinking about it and just need someone to tell them what to believe lest their head start hurting more, most would ardently agree and disagree with certain points of your "criteria." It's not because they can't see the "one truth." It's because in this case there is no "one truth."
    It is very clear from what you say here that you haven't studied this scientific problem at all. You don't know what you are talking about; you are only expressing your own totally undfounded prejudices.

  26. #66

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A couple ways to look at this...

    1. Truth is absolute and objective. Everything can be relegated into the realm of absolute truth or falsehood, including statements like "Nicole Kidman is beautiful." Only objective truth (that which is true in all possible times in all possible universes) is truth; subjective truth does not exist. What most call a subjective truth is merely a subjective view. (This boils down to the semantics of how we define "truth.")

    2. Truth is not absolute. You can say that some things can be relegated into the realm of objective truth or falsehood (e.g. 2+2=4), but some things cannot be (e.g. "Nicole Kidman is beautiful").

    a. Truth can only be objective, but is not always absolute. If something can't be deemed absolutely true or absolutely false... it simply has no truth value... it's not that it is a subjective truth (as there is no such thing), but that it is indeterminate.
    b. Truth may be subjective or objective, but only objective truth may be absolute. If something can't be deemed absolutely true or absolutely false, then if it is a truth, it is a subjective one (relative).
    This whole quote reaveals some misunderstandings of the key concepts. If many people on this forum understand the concepts objectivity and absolute in the way you describe here, that would explain why people are so confused about it. They simply don't understand what I am saying, and they don't understand the meanings of words like "objective" and "absolute truth".

    In order to make these things a bit more clear to everyone, I am going to quote a passage from Tibor R. Machan's book Objectivity: Recovering Determinate Reality in Philosophy, Science, and Everyday Life:

    What is an 'objective, absolute truth'? It is a proposition that identifies facts of reality that are basic, universal, and inescapable.

    Such a truth is objective because it identifies something that exists and is what it is independent of the proposition. If one states that the sun is shining today, and it is shining to today, the sun would be shining no matter who made the proposition or whether the proposition had been uttered at all. This view is known as the 'correspondence' theory of truth.

    A truth is absolute if it states a fundamental, universal, and inescapable fact, a fact that holds no matter what other facts might also exist. Not every objective truth is absolute. The sun, after a time, will no longer shine. But all absolute truths are objective, else they would not be truths.
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    If you could easily grasp their point of view, we wouldn't have to choke over this distinction like a bone in a piece of chicken one is trying to swallow. But because this has to be constantly choked over... discussions go nowhere. And that's why it's annoying. (Maybe you do easily grasp their point of view, but it doesn't have any bearing on how you respond.)
    To problem for me is that people on this forum don't use already established philosophical terms in the way they should be used, because people on this forum don't understand the concepts correctly. And that makes it hard for me to know what they really have in mind.

    To avoid confusions and misunderstandings people must simply learn the correct meaning of these concepts, otherwise we turn this into a stupid guessing game in which we can never know for sure that we are talking about the same thing or not. Therefore people should accept what I say is the correct use of philosophical terms without questioning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    You can deny what may be the subjective aspect of reality if you like, and try to take these "subjective" aspects and dissect them to sort out the absolute truth and absolute falsehood of all of them so that they fit into your absolutist objectivist system without contradicting one another. But I don't know how you would know that this constitutes finding the truth of reality rather than just constituting the workings of your own mind and how it is sorting out reality. Maybe it's all in your head, true to you, and reality remains as indistinct as it wants to be.
    And here you confuse again, as people on this forum do all the time, the different logical concepts truth and knowledge. That is another fundamental logical distinction that people just have to learn and accept as valid without questioning it. It is irritating that people don't understand that they don't understand these concepts correctly. They simply don't realize the logical errors they are making.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    That you don't recognize anything as being subjective, or recognize any point of view other than your own... that's why there are constant disagreements between you and most people on the forum.
    There are a lot of things in the world that are subjective, but truths are not members of that category.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    It's difficult to communicate with you because one has to translate everything into your worldview to understand what you mean.
    The only thing people have to do in order to understand what I am saying is to learn the basic rules of a philosophical discussion. You have to learn the common language that is used and accepted by everyone who has a basic education in philosophy. You are simply uneducated, and that should really not be my problem, even though I try my best to correct your misunderstandings and lack of knowledge by giving small lectures on philosophy now and then. The problem is, however, that people are questioning the content of what I teach, and that is both irritating for me and stupid of them, because that means that they will remain ignorant.

  27. #67
    misutii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,234
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    jesus there's no way I'm trudging through the mound of semantic crap that's already been posted.

    My first thoughts on this issue: race likely doesn't significantly effect the distribution of type but race does probably play a role in accentuating certain types (see info. on integral types) giving others the illusion that race effects the distribution of type
    INFp-Ni

  28. #68

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    TIM
    ESI-Fi 146w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    803
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's highly related to subtypes, yes, and probably base types as well.

    Examples:

    ILE-Ti are obviously more common in European Jews/Jewesses than in Palestinian Arabs. Anglo-Irish people were more likely to be ILE-Ti than the Irish Catholics they oppressed.

    SLE-Ti are more common in whites than in blacks.

    ESI-Se are more common in whites than blacks and they have a higher white to black ratio than ESI-Fi.

    LSI-Se were more common in Anglo-Irish people, LSI-Ti were more common in Irish Catholics.

    LSI-Ti were much more common among black slaves than LSI-Se.
    I'm sorry, but I'm psychologically disturbed.


  29. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Types quantities should be close to equal in all races and cultures.
    If you know a culture badly and it differs from yours - you may overesteemate a difference in a behavior caused by the personality but not from external reasons.

  30. #70
    YXPR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    TIM
    INFp / VEFL
    Posts
    245
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Disturbed View Post
    It's highly related to subtypes, yes, and probably base types as well.

    Examples:

    ILE-Ti are obviously more common in European Jews/Jewesses than in Palestinian Arabs. Anglo-Irish people were more likely to be ILE-Ti than the Irish Catholics they oppressed.

    SLE-Ti are more common in whites than in blacks.

    ESI-Se are more common in whites than blacks and they have a higher white to black ratio than ESI-Fi.

    LSI-Se were more common in Anglo-Irish people, LSI-Ti were more common in Irish Catholics.

    LSI-Ti were much more common among black slaves than LSI-Se.
    This is so aggressively ignorant

  31. #71

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    TIM
    ESI-Fi 146w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    803
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YXPR View Post
    This is so aggressively ignorant
    lol.

    I don't have anything against Anglo-irish people, I don't think they were really more oppressive than anyone else really and I do think they were great and I'm glad I have no Irish Catholic ancestry, but I've been unhappy that I have matrilineal probable middle eastern catholic ancestry. It makes me feel racially inferior and envious of people I care about.

    FWIW, P.W. Botha was an LSI-Ti and he had lead the apartheid state. He was an idiot. Not all LSI-Ti are idiots; however I prefer the sensory subtype.

    Maybe I could change my mind about my post you quoted, but most of what I said certainly seems to be how it was to me. I don't want to give people the impression that I think I'm infallible, because I know I'm not and because I couldn't get ahead in life if people were to think I think that I'm infallible.
    I'm sorry, but I'm psychologically disturbed.


  32. #72
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Therefore people should accept what I say is the correct use of philosophical terms without questioning.
    I miss this guy. He always made me laugh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    You are simply uneducated, and that should really not be my problem, even though I try my best to correct your misunderstandings and lack of knowledge by giving small lectures on philosophy now and then. The problem is, however, that people are questioning the content of what I teach, and that is both irritating for me and stupid of them, because that means that they will remain ignorant.
    heheheh, Oh boy, I can't stop grinning. My face hurts. I don't even know why it's so funny. It just is. Kind of reminds me of @Sol a little bit.

  33. #73
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    TIM
    Yet to be determined
    Posts
    4,411
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm pretty sure tcaud and phaedrus were the same person
    The end is nigh

  34. #74
    I don't play, I slay. Lolita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Near Whole Foods
    TIM
    SEE-N™ WPEL™ 863
    Posts
    1,146
    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think race does have an effect on culture, as in how well certain races identify with the culture, how it's influenced, etc. I don't think it's got much to do with personality but can most definitely shape one's public persona.

  35. #75
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,999
    Mentioned
    130 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Probably impacts personality to the extent that being of a certain ethnicity is more likely to expose you to a certain culture and thus a different set of experiences to shape yourself with, but I don't know if it can change personality at the universal/type level.

  36. #76
    The Banana King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    TIM
    ILE-Ti VLEF sx/sp
    Posts
    194
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Like it was mentioned before, people of different races either identify with or grow up in a culture which kind of gives a 'flair' to their personality. So I grew up and lived most of my life in a pretty conservative town in South America where Se and Fe is very strong. Generally Beta values are seen as important, the 'ideal' man is SLE. I mention this because the culture feels a bit like old-fashioned latino culture, where the gender roles are well-defined and men are sexist. I'm sure many people living in big Latin American cities will disagree with me, but the towns far away from the capitals feel very traditional and aggressive overall.
    Neither of my parents are Beta, and both of them have weak Se, and I myself am not a Se-valuer (afaik) and despite that I naturally developed some Se, and rejected some Delta/Alpha Ne values like childishness, weakness, etc. Most of the people I met there either rejected the local culture completely (Deltas) or embraced it (Betas) and so I met very few Alphas and Gammas over my 14 years living there. In fact, most of the Alphas (and one ILI) I met which were my friends, were from other cities/provinces or foreigners.

    So my country in general and especially the town where I lived, had an Se 'flavour'. North America feels more Gamma or Te-valuing to me, I see a lot of Gammas here which were very rare where I used to live. And I don't think that's a coincidence but it's a cultural thing rather than a racial thing.

  37. #77
    I don't play, I slay. Lolita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Near Whole Foods
    TIM
    SEE-N™ WPEL™ 863
    Posts
    1,146
    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Banana King View Post
    Like it was mentioned before, people of different races either identify with or grow up in a culture which kind of gives a 'flair' to their personality. So I grew up and lived most of my life in a pretty conservative town in South America where Se and Fe is very strong. Generally Beta values are seen as important, the 'ideal' man is SLE. I mention this because the culture feels a bit like old-fashioned latino culture, where the gender roles are well-defined and men are sexist. I'm sure many people living in big Latin American cities will disagree with me, but the towns far away from the capitals feel very traditional and aggressive overall.
    Neither of my parents are Beta, and both of them have weak Se, and I myself am not a Se-valuer (afaik) and despite that I naturally developed some Se, and rejected some Delta/Alpha Ne values like childishness, weakness, etc. Most of the people I met there either rejected the local culture completely (Deltas) or embraced it (Betas) and so I met very few Alphas and Gammas over my 14 years living there. In fact, most of the Alphas (and one ILI) I met which were my friends, were from other cities/provinces or foreigners.

    So my country in general and especially the town where I lived, had an Se 'flavour'. North America feels more Gamma or Te-valuing to me, I see a lot of Gammas here which were very rare where I used to live. And I don't think that's a coincidence but it's a cultural thing rather than a racial thing.
    I think in the States it’s more along the lines of big city vs smaller towns. The big cities operate on Fe and the smaller towns who are more financially self-sufficient are Te. I was born and raised in Los Angeles, been in and out of LA my entire life. I live in LA now and much of it hasn’t changed. The culture is still super Fe: you’re trying to effect the emotional atmosphere. You want people to notice you by how you’re acting around them. Granted, in big cities it’s Fe sociability, but it’s awfully fake. You’d be hard pressed to make a real friend. I’ve had countless new people take my number and say they’ll call me and we’ll go hangout (they’re transplants, I do have friends whom I grew up with here and we’re solid). Never heard from them again, even when I message them to go places. It’s very Alpha in the big cities which I absolutely hate. I get along with small town people who are Te oriented and we have much to say to each other. Big cities, I basically wanna kill everyone cuz they’re so fake.

  38. #78
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,404
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Disturbed View Post
    It's highly related to subtypes, yes, and probably base types as well.

    Examples:

    ILE-Ti are obviously more common in European Jews/Jewesses than in Palestinian Arabs. Anglo-Irish people were more likely to be ILE-Ti than the Irish Catholics they oppressed.

    SLE-Ti are more common in whites than in blacks.

    ESI-Se are more common in whites than blacks and they have a higher white to black ratio than ESI-Fi.

    LSI-Se were more common in Anglo-Irish people, LSI-Ti were more common in Irish Catholics.

    LSI-Ti were much more common among black slaves than LSI-Se.
    Based

  39. #79
    Haikus SGF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ┌П┐(ಠ_ಠ)
    TIM
    LSI-H™
    Posts
    2,165
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm 1% Inuit and I'd kill for some smoked pig fat right about now.

  40. #80
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,929
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Race, culture, country, clique, status and or religion place certain expectations on the behaviour of individuals regardless of their type. Some of these social expectations can often be mapped into a Socionics type; for example, Germany seems rather ISTj-like in its overall expectations of their citizens although type distribution of the German population is no different from other countries. Public personas are worn like uniforms and they often obscure the determination of actual type. The need for such personas is an indication of intolerance for those outside the norm, and such requirements are undercurrents even among the most tolerant because they often look down their noses at those who're intolerant.

    a.k.a. I/O

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •