User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 86

  1. #51
    Senior Member Pancreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    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.
    Unless youíre generalising the causes of greed, you have to reconsider. When Iím being or feeling greedy itís usually NOT because Iím hurt or insecure.

    Food is a good example nowadays. Yes, people overeat for various reasons, but if you look at overeating due to greed, then some people do it because they like the food, and so eat more. They enjoy the food, so they eat more. Where is the emotion in that?

    Ugh, sometimes I wish English had more distinctions between things. Greed is a feeling, perhaps, but not an emotion in the sense that itís related to feeling functions.

    Or maybe Iím wrong. Suggesting that itís related to F, though, would imply that people who prefer feeling would have more moments of greediness than others (regardless of whether they act upon them). And I think thatís BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I see that people are taking this this thread purely as philosophical argument but it was not designed to be just that.
    Iím going to take a stab in the dark and say it was probably because it sounds as though you think part of the solution to make the current world better is a shift towards the majority having a slight preference for thinking. Which is simply not going to happen. This is why Iíve approached this as though it were all a hypothetical scenario.

    Disregarding that whole Ďpreference for thinkingí part though, you present a very interesting question: How are people going to make it through the next few hundred years? My guess would be not very well. I think you could construct and perfect solutions for years, but they simply will not be practical in any sort of large-scale implementation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    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.
    Okay, fair point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    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.
    Alright, Iím going to ignore the 20% T bit because, again, thereís no point hypothesising about that when it wonít actually happen, and your main aim is to think up realistic, or at least feasible, solutions.

    Iím not sure this is one of the problems you can fix by simply patching it up with duct tape. This is more the kind of problem where you have to chuck out half of what you have and start again.

    As it is, the world already has too many people if youíre looking at it from a purely sustainable aspect. The only way that people are going to be sustainable on a large scale is if there are less people.

    So I canít solve that one. I donít think anyone can.

  2. #52
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,681

    Default

    Unless youíre generalising the causes of greed, you have to reconsider. When Iím being or feeling greedy itís usually NOT because Iím hurt or insecure.

    Food is a good example nowadays. Yes, people overeat for various reasons, but if you look at overeating due to greed, then some people do it because they like the food, and so eat more. They enjoy the food, so they eat more. Where is the emotion in that?
    Where is emotion in that?
    Maybe in liking of the food?


    Ugh, sometimes I wish English had more distinctions between things. Greed is a feeling, perhaps, but not an emotion in the sense that itís related to feeling functions.
    I am well aware of the problem.

    Or maybe Iím wrong. Suggesting that itís related to F, though, would imply that people who prefer feeling would have more moments of greediness than others (regardless of whether they act upon them). And I think thatís BS.
    It is related to F but in Fs and Ts. Overal reduction of F could reduce this over the "critical line" and reduce this way of acting by a large degree.
    What I am saying is that there is so much greed out there because the foundations of modern society are not based on logic. At least that is how I see it.


    Iím going to take a stab in the dark and say it was probably because it sounds as though you think part of the solution to make the current world better is a shift towards the majority having a slight preference for thinking. Which is simply not going to happen. This is why Iíve approached this as though it were all a hypothetical scenario.
    Well, all of this is just hypotetical.
    What I am saying is that as tech level grows we will need more and more thinking to controle it and if we don't we will have problems(capital problems)
    I am perfectly aware that shifting a entire thing toward T part of the speturm is impossble or qute unlikely. But that does not kill an argument that we need more retionality in this world. At least to pulls ourselfs out of this mess.


    Disregarding that whole Ďpreference for thinkingí part though, you present a very interesting question: How are people going to make it through the next few hundred years? My guess would be not very well. I think you could construct and perfect solutions for years, but they simply will not be practical in any sort of large-scale implementation.
    I am not sure that you see at what I am shooting at here.
    The moment when majority of people even starts to acknowledge the big picture and its details you are already shifting toward the T (and N).



    Alright, Iím going to ignore the 20% T bit because, again, thereís no point hypothesising about that when it wonít actually happen, and your main aim is to think up realistic, or at least feasible, solutions.
    Well that 20% we presented just to provide an idea about what I am talking about and I have no intentions to blindly stick to it.


    Iím not sure this is one of the problems you can fix by simply patching it up with duct tape. This is more the kind of problem where you have to chuck out half of what you have and start again.

    As it is, the world already has too many people if youíre looking at it from a purely sustainable aspect. The only way that people are going to be sustainable on a large scale is if there are less people.

    So I canít solve that one. I donít think anyone can.
    1. Correct.

    2. There is too many of them already but the thing is that most of people don't pay almost any attention to it. Finding a perfect solution is extremly unlikely. But at least we can start to think in a way "Save what you can"
    What would lead to retionalization to some degree.

  3. #53
    Senior Member Pancreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Where is emotion in that?
    Maybe in liking of the food?
    I donít know about you, but I donít get emotionally attached to my food.
    Itís sensory, not emotional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I am not sure that you see at what I am shooting at here.
    Yeah, apparently I donít...

    I donít really have time for a longer post at the moment, either, so I might just leave it at that for now.

  4. #54
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancreas View Post
    I donít know about you, but I donít get emotionally attached to my food.
    Itís sensory, not emotional.



    Yeah, apparently I donít...

    I donít really have time for a longer post at the moment, either, so I might just leave it at that for now.

    1. Neither do I, I have even created a thread about this kinds of things.
    This is probably because we are both stabile Ts. For me is not sensory, just something that has to be done.


    2. If you say so.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    I think a reasonable Feeler can see that some actions should be taken or not taken for the sake of the greater good. Feelers are not always self-indulgent. I happen to agree about not supporting unsustainable systems and overpopulation and I'm a high F. Some things are sad but true.

  6. #56
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    I think a reasonable Feeler can see that some actions should be taken or not taken for the sake of the greater good. Feelers are not always self-indulgent. I happen to agree about not supporting unsustainable systems and overpopulation and I'm a high F. Some things are sad but true.

    I am aware of that. It is just that solutions for some big problems could be in conflict with positions Fs are holding.

    I placed that Africa example there for a reason.

    Also it is easy to look at this kinds of things from the position of Western culture that has a well developed critical thinking. (more or less)
    But the thing is that logic of/in many other parts of the world is quite different.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    I think T's rule the world, don't they? There are more Ts than Fs, especially in places of power.

  8. #58
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    I think T's rule the world, don't they? There are more Ts than Fs, especially in places of power.
    The title is "Do we need so much emotions in life" for a reason since I am attacking emotions in Fs and Ts.
    As tech level goes up our responsibility goes up and the only way to control the situation is by reducing impact of things that can be described as personal values.

  9. #59
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    *light bulb goes on*

    Ok, I'm listening.

  10. #60
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,681

    Default

    Well, to create a miodel that will get us out of this mess without saking everything is quite unlikely.

    What means that we should at least start to think about things that can be saved. I said that I am attacking F in Ts and Fs but that is incomplete/incorrect statement. What I am attacking is right to make a desision on on a principle "Just because I feel like it" what Fs and Ts do.

    Somebody will call it reduction of freedom, I am calling it fight for survival.

    In incoming years the undeveloped world will take a hardest hit from making a bad choices. While developed world mostly lost connection with reality.
    Developed world lives as ther is no tomorrow in many aspects.


    Why have I said that we need some shift towards T?
    Exactly because we need more critical thinking to retionalise resource production. But if we do that we have pushed entire thing towards T (and N)

    Today people buy plenty of things they don't need. I dont think that in a way that they will use it and enjoy it. I mean they are will not even use it.
    I am simply questioning the sanity of this kind of behaviour.


    Another example is that your boss will give you a hard time on your job.
    But he/she is doing it not because it is he/she trully likes it (in most cases) but because that is in job description and he/she is under pressure form his/her boss etc. So in the end you are getting huge amount of stressed people who can take it even physicaly.
    Why so many people need professional help and commit sucide?
    If you ask me it is because of they can no longer see the logical purpose.
    In a cese they do they would probably try harder and have more energy.



    All of this is just because entire system is more or less built on personal belifs and not in a way that it is stabile on the long run. What is by my opinion lack of critical thinking and I think that in this aspects we should almost completly replace compulsive emotional needs with critical thinking.

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