Why Spend Large Amounts of Time Around a Philosophy or World View You Hate?

[entropie]

Yeah, but how many times do you need to hear the same possibility screamed at you in every thread you go into, even if the thread is not about typology, and not really tailored to the discussion in question so that it integrates rationally into it? For a period of literally a few years? What if it was someone who constantly yelled, "Red meat will lead to heart attacks!!" in any thread regardless of the topic? The point might be generally true and not a bad thing to consider, but does that change the fact how ridiculous and pointless the delivery might be?

I'm not a moron; tell me once or twice, and I'll work the idea into my thinking, if it makes sense. More than that, it just becomes white noise and headache-inducing.

So you meant to say my pness (jokes) gives you headaches ?

 

[Philosorapteuse]

I think it makes some people feel special to be a lone voice of dissent. Could be the same family of feeling as people who hate everything as soon as it becomes "mainstream" or "popular", because their identity hinges so much on being "weird" and "outcast" and "misunderstood" and a black sheep. I know people like this - have shades of it myself, which I really wish I didn't. Symptoms include insisting that a particular trait is "weird" even when it's long been mainstream and unremarkable. I Must Be Different In Some Way, Even If It's In A Crappy Way. Third cousin to a martyr complex. Perhaps when some people of this persuasion are unfortunate enough to find themselves in a friendship group that's too accepting to find them weird or outrageous no matter how they try, they seek out people who will validate their Radical Outcast Weirdo status.

</pet theory>

 

[Totenkindly]

So you meant to say my pness (jokes) gives you headaches ?

Only when you keep poking me in the face with them.

I think it makes some people feel special to be a lone voice of dissent. Could be the same family of feeling as people who hate everything as soon as it becomes "mainstream" or "popular", because their identity hinges so much on being "weird" and "outcast" and "misunderstood" and a black sheep.

That's run through my mind.

I know people on forums and IRL who define themselves by what they are opposed to, for example. It doesn't matter what it is, they just know the scripts that involve always being the odd person out -- they're not sure how to deal when they're in agreement with something. But there's also the element about needing to be the pariah or the voice in the wilderness, in order to feel like they are clearly defined and unique in the world.

 

[Burger King]

Follow sports? Same thing there. You root for a team, watch the league play, love it. Then turn around get mad criticize and shit on the same league that you so happily embraced. "Oh it's rigged!!" "Stupid rules ruin the game." etc etc... *Still watches*

 

[prplchknz]

perhaps people like to complain to complain, i think thats what it is. it's like i need to complain because the world might end if i don't, stupid shoe laces! why can't we wear velcro?

 

[1487610420]

perhaps people like to complain to complain, i think thats what it is. it's like i need to complain because the world might end if i don't, stupid shoe laces! why can't we wear velcro?

FU laces, velcro FTW!!!!!1111oneoneone

 

[Philosorapteuse]

FU laces, velcro FTW!!!!!1111oneoneone

Heretic! Buckles are the one true fastening!

 

[prplchknz]

Heretic! Buckles are the one true fastening!

I really do hate shoe laces, if my shoes have laces i tend to tie them once and slip them on and off. I only have one pair with laces the rest of my shoes velcro or slip on.

 

[ygolo]

I think a community that tolerates its critics is a healthier one. My motivation is simply that I have gotten used to the people I met when I first came here.

I think you'll find that skeptics of typology (myers-briggs, jungian functions, enneagram, socionics) are more common here than you may expect. Many of us came here because we were curious and/or going through a phase in life that lead to self-examination (the idea of personality can become important during these times).

I personally think Jung was onto something and that there is some value to archetypes. I think trait based theories lack something that type theories capture. I found it interesting to explore the topics related to this.

Now, however, I think most of typology to be BS. But I know that I've looked into it with an open mind, and have gotten a fairly thorough understanding of these topics before I formed this opinion.

I also know the types of peculiar prejudices that working from a belief of various personality theories can produce. This is probably the most harmful thing. ("I hate Fe". "Don't Fe guilt-trip me." "Ti is annoying". "Sensors are stupid." "Perceivers are lazy."...). It gives labels, and language to describe aspects of "personality" in such a way that people can pick sides and create "in-groups" and "out-groups" along lines that would be very strange to those not familiar with personality theories.

Making comments like the one above is tolerated in here, so I stay.

I went through a similar thing with evangelical Christianity. I regularly went to a bible study, for 4 years, every week. I was probably one of the most regular members to go. There were group leaders who were less consistent, and less prepared (there were assigned bible passages and little worksheets they gave out every week). I felt like I genuinely gave the ideas presented a fair shake. I listened to people's problems, prayed for them, and asked for others to pray for me. It wasn't merely an "intellectual exercise".

However, in this community, I am fairly certain, if I stated the things I believed were harmful, they would not let me stick around, so I left.

 

[Cellmold]

I can't speak for all of them, but taking a few examples in mind on Typology Central, like [MENTION=3325]Victor[/MENTION] for example who does not put much value into MBTI or rather wants to point out the limitations and dangers of completely adhering to such an incomplete and subjective system. He takes the role of whispering in our ears that any one view is not neccesarily the only view. Teaching people to have consideration and recognition of views not neccesarily their own.

I find that role to be an important one in all groups/cliques that discuss the subjective.

I agree actually. However as with anything there is a limit and a fine line.

The fine line here is the one between accurately pointing out and making aware to people's minds the discrepancies in what they might blindly believe otherwise...and just being a sad, attention seeking fool who is as mired by his/her delusions as he/she would proclaim others to be.

It's like optimism and pessimism. They are just two sides of the same coin; the only difference is pessimism likes to pretend it is somehow wiser and more intelligent.

All it really comes down to is that one wears rose-tinted spectacles and the other one wears shit-smeared sewer goggles.

The biggest delusion of all is the belief that your truth is more real than anyone elses. To me that is the core of any kind of 'critical thinking': being able to turn it on yourself just as you would do the world.

But of course there are sometimes more superficial reasons; some people just enjoy sparking a bit of outrage or attacking the commonly held views of a majority. It's easiest of all on a forum like this where the focus and views are centrified on one particular range of subjects.

It's also interesting to see under what banner such a person might champion. Often it is one of empiricism; that the measurement, observation and comparison of testable realities is superior to all other methods and defeats that which cannot be wholly tested and if it cannot be tested or measured then it is nothing more than a childish fantasy. Other times it is the 'end is nigh' style, where those in a forum are considered to be deluded to their own detriment, blind to the folly into which they would gladly throw themselves and thus here our saviour makes his entrance, slaying falsity and self-denial with his mental blade of truth.

It's a fun world...

 

[Wolfie]

I agree actually. However as with anything there is a limit and a fine line.

The fine line here is the one between accurately pointing out and making aware to people's minds the discrepancies in what they might blindly believe otherwise...and just being a sad, attention seeking fool who is as mired by his/her delusions as he/she would proclaim others to be.

It's like optimism and pessimism. They are just two sides of the same coin; the only difference is pessimism likes to pretend it is somehow wiser and more intelligent.

All it really comes down to is that one wears rose-tinted spectacles and the other one wears shit-smeared sewer goggles.

The biggest delusion of all is the belief that your truth is more real than anyone elses. To me that is the core of any kind of 'critical thinking': being able to turn it on yourself just as you would do the world.

But of course there are sometimes more superficial reasons; some people just enjoy sparking a bit of outrage or attacking the commonly held views of a majority. It's easiest of all on a forum like this where the focus and views are centrified on one particular range of subjects.

It's also interesting to see under what banner such a person might champion. Often it is one of empiricism; that the measurement, observation and comparison of testable realities is superior to all other methods and defeats that which cannot be wholly tested and if it cannot be tested or measured then it is nothing more than a childish fantasy. Other times it is the 'end is nigh' style, where those in a forum are considered to be deluded to their own detriment, blind to the folly into which they would gladly throw themselves and thus here our saviour makes his entrance, slaying falsity and self-denial with his mental blade of truth.

It's a fun world...

Very interesting. Many of those types also really enjoy arguing and really enjoy being correct, and will attack your points instead of listening to you almost for fun. For me it is not always about being perfectly correct, because what is that anyways. When I am discussing something abstract, which I often am, I get very irritated when whoever I'm talking with interrupts my explanation to blather about details that I feel are rather irrelevant to my point. I think some types do not like to listen to you and put aside their thoughts to understand you. I am very forgiving when listening to others because intuitively I can pretty much grasp what they are getting at whether or not they are presenting their idea "correctly".

That said, I do have quite a lot of friends who are that way. I think I have tendencies like that, where I can see easily where an argument is flawed or where extra factors could be considered. There's a time and a place for it, though.

 

[Mole]

If you taught a course on critical thinking at the local community college, I'd probably enroll for a laugh.

Actually, linking critical thinking and the suspension of disbelief is a minor act of genius. It is seminal and leads to whole fields of insight and interesting new questions.

Sneering at me seems a little jeune.

 

[Cellmold]

Actually, linking critical thinking and the suspension of disbelief is a minor act of genius. It is seminal and leads to whole fields of insight and interesting new questions.

Sneering at me seems a little jeune.

Do you talk this way in real life? That would be interesting to see.

The world needs a bit more verbal poetry.

 

[Qlip]

Actually, linking critical thinking and the suspension of disbelief is a minor act of genius. It is seminal and leads to whole fields of insight and interesting new questions.

Sneering at me seems a little jeune.

If you do say so yourself. What you do ends up nullifying the critical portion of critical thinking. Of course, it takes critical thinking to be able to realize that.

I don't begrudge people doing whatever it is that turns them on, but I do get irritated when people try to market it as something other than that.

 

[onemoretime]

If you do say so yourself. What you do ends up nullifying the critical portion of critical thinking. Of course, it takes critical thinking to be able to realize that.

I don't begrudge people doing whatever it is that turns them on, but I do get irritated when people try to market it as something other than that.

What do you mean? "Let's say that this is true, even though I don't think it to be so. What would that mean?" Doesn't that sound like critical thinking?

 

[Philosorapteuse]

Actually, linking critical thinking and the suspension of disbelief is a minor act of genius. It is seminal and leads to whole fields of insight and interesting new questions.

Sneering at me seems a little jeune.

If you say so. I expect you're just too damn seminal for little old me.

 

[Qlip]

What do you mean? "Let's say that this is true, even though I don't think it to be so. What would that mean?" Doesn't that sound like critical thinking?

Critical thinking also requires critical language. Suspension of disbelief is so much more than just propositioning that something is true for the use in analysis. That's such a simple concept, that I assume this isn't what [MENTION=3325]Victor[/MENTION] was referring to as genius?

Suspension of disbelief is really the act of ignoring what you know to be true to be able to accept an idea, a supposition.. usually because you like the idea so damned much. Anyway, I'd need some clarification.. since I suppose since you can have a different read on it, I can only assume I know what Victor is talking about.

 

[Philosorapteuse]

What do you mean? "Let's say that this is true, even though I don't think it to be so. What would that mean?" Doesn't that sound like critical thinking?

Hm, I'd say that the bit you do *after* that is the critical thinking. Being able to posit a counterfactual doesn't really require any strenuous analysis IMO.

 

[onemoretime]

Critical thinking also requires critical language. Suspension of disbelief is so much more than just propositioning that something is true for the use in analysis. That's such a simple concept, that I assume this isn't what [MENTION=3325]Victor[/MENTION] was referring to as genius?

Suspension of disbelief is really the act of ignoring what you know to be true to be able to accept an idea, a supposition.. usually because you like the idea so damned much. Anyway, I'd need some clarification.. since I suppose since you can have a different read on it, I can only assume I know what Victor is talking about.

True. However, there are deeper areas of analysis that start from counterfactuals. It starts to break into epistemological questions - how is it that I know this is true? How is it that I can know this is true? Eventually, you may get to the point where it seems that any sort of functioning in this universe requires a suspension of disbelief on some level.

Hm, I'd say that the bit you do *after* that is the critical thinking. Being able to posit a counterfactual doesn't really require any strenuous analysis IMO.

Possibly, but one of the important things going on there is the understanding that you think something to be one way, while the possibility still exists for it to be another. Ultimately, you cannot make any absolute claim to knowing the truth. You only can believe something based on particular evidence. That's the linkage, IMO.

 

[Qlip]

True. However, there are deeper areas of analysis that start from counterfactuals. It starts to break into epistemological questions - how is it that I know this is true? How is it that I can know this is true? Eventually, you may get to the point where it seems that any sort of functioning in this universe requires a suspension of disbelief on some level.

Possibly, but one of the important things going on there is the understanding that you think something to be one way, while the possibility still exists for it to be another. Ultimately, you cannot make any absolute claim to knowing the truth. You only can believe something based on particular evidence. That's the linkage, IMO.

See, but words like analysis and counterfactual have such dispassionate qualities to them, because you are using these processes and concepts to discover truth.. or even discover the attributes of truth. Suspension of disbelief is an act to define truth, perhaps only even temporarily, for a personal agenda. The idea has a certain man against the universe lyrical beauty to it (see, linking it to the subject of this thread), but is like oil to critical thinking's water.

Anyway, we can't really know what we're arguing until we know what he believes is the connection between Suspension of Disbelief and Critical Thinking. And what he means by Suspension of Disbelief. [MENTION=3325]Victor[/MENTION], care to explain?