User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 86

  1. #41
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireyPheonix View Post
    The theory would work so long as everyone was on the same page. Seeing as people are rarely on the same page together (yes, even logical T's) I think it wouldn't be better, just different. Too many other factors involved. There are still motivations, and agendas involved.
    And for a NF, I'm not so attached to the human race. Convince me on my terms, and I can be just as ruthless, and heartless as any other type (and efficient).
    I think the real problem with the world today, is we don't learn from history, we don't focus on the future, and western civilization is far too disconnected from nature.
    I don't think whether you are a T or F really comes into play.
    Yes it would work, but why are people not on the same page?
    If we want to survive we will have to think much more similar to each other.
    I am not saying that we should think the same just similar.

    I agree about what you see as problems.

    Why do you say that you can be

    I can be just as ruthless, and heartless as any other type (and efficient).
    What you are tring to accomplish with this, the fact that you need to act hartless and ruthless only proves that current system is not enough rational.
    If our goal is to try to survive then this kind of behaviour does no make much sense.

  2. #42
    No Cigar Litvyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    I don't see the point in discussing this topic. Repressing emotions is difficult and unnecessary (very unhealthy, actually), so why do it? Every human being is more or less emotional, and emotions proved to be pretty useful in human evolution. We're better of with them than without them.

    (putting that aside, I'd hate to imagine a world without cute NF girls )

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    What in practical sense means that you don't need to be touched by problems of people, to do something about it.
    Oh yes you do. Or at least most people need to be touched to act, they can't be persuaded by simple arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    So in the end this means that you will just feed them and aid them until you will not be able to do so any more since there is too many of them.
    Better conditons => less children. Look it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I think that the world be a better place if the most emotional people are somewhere around 20%T.
    Debatable. We could list countless arguments for and against this statement, but why should we? It's nothing that we can change. Furthermore, variability is usually a good choice for most species.

  3. #43
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    I don't see the point in discussing this topic. Repressing emotions is difficult and unnecessary (very unhealthy, actually), so why do it? Every human being is more or less emotional, and emotions proved to be pretty useful in human evolution. We're better of with them than without them.
    (putting that aside, I'd hate to imagine a world without cute NF girls )

    Oh yes you do. Or at least most people need to be touched to act, they can't be persuaded with simple arguments.

    Better conditons => less children. Look it up.
    First I want to say that this entire thread is highy hypothetical.
    Also big picture efects agruments as well and this picture is not included.



    Back to the thread.

    First you are generalising I never said that in this case we should exterminate emotions completly, I said that we need to reduce their impact.

    Just because they have proved useful in our evolution that does not mean that they will be so useful in the future. That is because as tech level is going up some kinds of behaviour are not good options.

    We sill have tribe mentality in us but that mentality could lead to total catastrophe. Just take a look at the cold war.

  4. #44
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I am talking from experiance. My T is extreme and it appears that I am more emotinally stabile then people around me.
    The fact that this works for me is plobably because I am extreme introvert and the reason why you have problem with this concept is because you are E.
    Yes, you're right, but then another requirement is to be added to your 20-percent perference for T, namely emotional stability. In fact, generally, I have too a quite high T percentage and don't get emotionally unstable by thinking and reflecting and ruminating - but I do tend to get less happy if that is carried to an extreme. Less happiness leads to less energy levels, that lead to less productivity.

    I see your point but I disagree.
    What I am saying is that more T world probably be more organised and rational. What means that the social system would be like this as well.
    Since goals would be more realistic in many cases there should be much less stress and that would change ratio of good and bad emotions.
    Well, my experience leads me to believe that what is considered as "realistic", "organized", and "rational" varies from one thinking type to the other. For example, what an ESTJ considers realistic and organized is often different to what an ENTJ, or ESTP, will consider realistic and organized. What does this mean? That people will start to argue (low agreeableness). Low neuroticism will imply that they won't feel bad from arguing, thus it may actually happen that thinking types argue forever between each other on implementing a solution or the other. Often, in this cases, it's a feeling type that is able to mediate between conflicting parties and facilitate a conclusion.


    Maybe it is cultural thing, but did you ever encounter people who desperately want something what they can have?
    Since they want it so badly they are willing to take chances to get it even if offer is a bad one. Why do you think someone is willing to become a drug lord?
    It would be completely rational to become a drug lord if that was what gives the person the highest expected utility. Say a person is not very risk-averse, then becoming a drug lord can be a rather reasonable choice, since profits can be very high. Conversely, a feeling type might be disinclined to become a drug lord because it goes against hir morals - no matter what the payoff is.

    To get things he could not afford when he was a kid.
    That's extremely simplicistic. I doubt most drug lords buy toys for themselves.

    I stand by my post since it is highly questionable what is rational and what is emotional in this case. Why all those people have to place so much imperative on their interests? Because someone made them believe that this are their interests.
    I don't know man, but your post really seems to be full of non-sequitors. They may just really be their interests, not everybody is brainwshed. Also, thinking types are no less immune to brainwashing than feeling types.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  5. #45
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Yes, you're right, but then another requirement is to be added to your 20-percent perference for T, namely emotional stability. In fact, generally, I have too a quite high T percentage and don't get emotionally unstable by thinking and reflecting and ruminating - but I do tend to get less happy if that is carried to an extreme. Less happiness leads to less energy levels, that lead to less productivity.
    As a said few posts ago the point is not that everybody are totally emotionaly stabile.


    Well, my experience leads me to believe that what is considered as "realistic", "organized", and "rational" varies from one thinking type to the other. For example, what an ESTJ considers realistic and organized is often different to what an ENTJ, or ESTP, will consider realistic and organized. What does this mean? That people will start to argue (low agreeableness). Low neuroticism will imply that they won't feel bad from arguing, thus it may actually happen that thinking types argue forever between each other on implementing a solution or the other. Often, in this cases, it's a feeling type that is able to mediate between conflicting parties and facilitate a conclusion
    That is true but this agrument is based on asumption that we a species have plenty of options. What is not true if you ask me.



    It would be completely rational to become a drug lord if that was what gives the person the highest expected utility. Say a person is not very risk-averse, then becoming a drug lord can be a rather reasonable choice, since profits can be very high. Conversely, a feeling type might be disinclined to become a drug lord because it goes against hir morals - no matter what the payoff is.
    Or T would find it ilogical and F would want more money.
    I think that in this kinds of things there is not too much difference.


    That's extremely simplicistic. I doubt most drug lords buy toys for themselves.
    I think that everything they buy more of less is for some kind entertainment even when they buy a complany, that in a way for entertanment.


    don't know man, but your post really seems to be full of non-sequitors. They may just really be their interests, not everybody is brainwshed. Also, thinking types are no less immune to brainwashing than feeling types.
    To tell you the truth I am not too sure about this one. F are more likely to have "get along" strategy then Ts
    It is easy when things are clear but when things are not that much obvious F will probably be more friendly. I am not saying all F are sheeps that just waiting to be brainwashed.
    When you say brain washed that sounds like something that can be linked to politics. But what about modern advertising technics?


    I did not open this thread to make a some strong inflexible point. It is just that it look to me that we will need to push entire spectrum towards the T side. Since that is only way to prevent getting lost in our own game.

  6. #46
    ThatGirl
    Guest

    Default

    I didnt read the whole thread so I will just go with what I know is true here. Feelings distort everything. They are NOT important and should not be aknowledged as anything more than a sensor. Take a perfectly good situation and mask it with feelings and you are bound to have a mess left to clean up as the situation is never properly handeled due to compensation.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatGirl View Post
    I didnt read the whole thread so I will just go with what I know is true here. Feelings distort everything. They are NOT important and should not be aknowledged as anything more than a sensor. Take a perfectly good situation and mask it with feelings and you are bound to have a mess left to clean up as the situation is never properly handeled due to compensation.
    Your kidding right? What do you mean by sensor?

  8. #48
    Senior Member Pancreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    That is true but I think that things are not that simple.
    This is one of my main issues with what youíre saying. What youíre saying could happen, if you donít let things get too complicated. Also, things would have to go perfectly, and that rarely happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    What is greed for you ?
    Greed is wanting excess. I donít believe itís an emotion. You could act upon it using feeling or thinking to make a decision. You could make equally good or poor decisions using either, depending on the people involved and the circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Yes, you're right, but then another requirement is to be added to your 20-percent perference for T, namely emotional stability. In fact, generally, I have too a quite high T percentage and don't get emotionally unstable by thinking and reflecting and ruminating - but I do tend to get less happy if that is carried to an extreme. Less happiness leads to less energy levels, that lead to less productivity.
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Well, my experience leads me to believe that what is considered as "realistic", "organized", and "rational" varies from one thinking type to the other. For example, what an ESTJ considers realistic and organized is often different to what an ENTJ, or ESTP, will consider realistic and organized. What does this mean? That people will start to argue (low agreeableness). Low neuroticism will imply that they won't feel bad from arguing, thus it may actually happen that thinking types argue forever between each other on implementing a solution or the other. Often, in this cases, it's a feeling type that is able to mediate between conflicting parties and facilitate a conclusion.
    Good points. Not to mention all the variability you get from one person to the next.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I think that everything they buy more of less is for some kind entertainment even when they buy a complany, that in a way for entertainment
    Really? It couldnít possibly to make more money? Or for any other reaons? You canít just simply a group of people into one group and then say they make a tonne of different decisions for the same underlying reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I did not open this thread to make a some strong inflexible point. It is just that it look to me that we will need to push entire spectrum towards the T side. Since that is only way to prevent getting lost in our own game.
    Maybe this is the main reason I disagree with you: I donít think that you can change human nature by shifting the way most people make decisions slightly. People can still be irrational and illogical, greedy, xenophobic, selfish, etc., no matter whether they have a slight preference for thinking over feeling.

  9. #49
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Why do you say that you can be



    What you are tring to accomplish with this, the fact that you need to act hartless and ruthless only proves that current system is not enough rational.
    If our goal is to try to survive then this kind of behaviour does no make much sense.
    What I was trying to put across using rather emotive language, I admit, and rather vaugely, was when presented with a convincing argument with the facts checking out, and gut feeling, I too can put aside feeling, and make the logical desicion. Example, the kids are starving, and we own a cow. I have nothing else to sell, and the cow's milk has dried up. The logical option is sell the cow, and/ or kill it, sell the meat for exchange for seed, or money.
    I like the cow, I'm rather attached to it emotionally because I raised it from a calf. Logically speaking it will take more effort and time to sell the cow whole. I know my neighbours will exchange seed for some meat, my kids will get an meal or two sooner rather than later, and plus we have some thing to provide food later. Flawed example I know, but what I was trying to demonstrate, there is no way I'm going to let my feelings for the cow get in the way, of feeding my kids (which by the way I have none, but you get the idea).
    As to getting everyone on the same page, world view wise, it would help if the powers that be, actually listened,with an open mind and no agenda, to experts in pertinent fields and varying opinion. If they listened, that would be the first steps.
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #50
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    This is one of my main issues with what youíre saying. What youíre saying could happen, if you donít let things get too complicated. Also, things would have to go perfectly, and that rarely happens.
    Things in reality are not simple only people make them look simple by
    simplifing them. The question is not about what can be done but what should be done.


    Greed is wanting excess. I donít believe itís an emotion. You could act upon it using feeling or thinking to make a decision. You could make equally good or poor decisions using either, depending on the people involved and the circumstances.
    I disagree. Greed is a emotional need which appears when someone is hurt and insecure. You are using thinking to achive your goals but goal is purely emotional.



    Really? It couldnít possibly to make more money? Or for any other reaons? You canít just simply a group of people into one group and then say they make a tonne of different decisions for the same underlying reason.
    Why would they want money? What they are going to with it?

    They need it to buy things they want and large number of them are for pure entertainment. When you have that much money the amount you spend on basic biological needs is small in percentage.
    Why would they want so much money in the first place?
    They want it so that they can spend it or to get more influence. What is again a form of entertainment.
    What I am saying is that our most basic need do not fit the reality we are living in and if we don't start to make more decision on statistics and hard science we will have some serious problems.



    Maybe this is the main reason I disagree with you: I donít think that you can change human nature by shifting the way most people make decisions slightly. People can still be irrational and illogical, greedy, xenophobic, selfish, etc., no matter whether they have a slight preference for thinking over feeling.
    What I am doing here in this thread is questioning how long will this behaviour last. From the start of the thread I know how people act, but that does not mean that this is a right choice.

    I see that people are taking this this thread purely as philosophical argument but it was not designed to be just that.
    I had that part about Africa in the OP for reason and I said that I will not make big arguments but it look I will have to since people don't understand about what kinds of things I am talking about.


    Here is a amall part of one of my big posts and I have more of this kinds of arguments but I think this one hits the point.
    How would you solve this one?


    But parents donít die when they have children so when you have 2 parents with 2 children you are not at 0 you have 100% increase. The point is not that we will decrease number with time the point is that we are spending more then it can be produced/ regenerated and we are destroying the system by our actions.
    In about 2 years from now there will be 7 billion people on this planet. So letís say that in the next 10 years billion women and billion man will have children. If they have only one child we will have another billion and there is no way that everybody will have just one. Of course old and smaller generations die but world still has a strong surplus.
    In a case that we get 1.5 billion of new people and about 0.5 billion dies as old (generation is smaller) we will get an extra billion.

    One billion divided in 10(years) = 100 000 000 extra every year. Divide that with 365 and you get about 270 000 per day. What means that you need to build 270 elementary schools for 1000 children each day just to get the most basic education for those children. Not to mention high schools and colleges and place for a job. This is simplified but it is obvious where this leads us.
    Plus we are in the middle of global economic crisis, energy crisis and crisis of food and fresh water. I think that forming a logical conclusion about this is really not that hard.

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Why Do NFs Apologize So Much?
    By Totenkindly in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 228
    Last Post: 09-25-2017, 02:49 AM
  2. Do we have any animal doctors in the house? pro help needed.
    By Betty Blue in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-30-2012, 01:47 PM
  3. [NF] Do we care too much about humanity??
    By chipy100 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 12-23-2008, 05:33 PM
  4. [JCF] why do infjs care so much about people/relationships/interactions
    By peppermint13 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-16-2008, 06:47 AM
  5. How Do You Post So Much?
    By Crabapple in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-17-2007, 03:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO