User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 82

  1. #61
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apollanaut View Post
    In a recent survey on happiness, hunter-gatherers supposedly reported a level of happiness equalling or exceeding that of modern technological man. Of course, you have to take these surveys with a pinch of salt because it all depends on how you define "happiness".
    See, the thing is, they never even think about defining happiness in a hunter gatherer society. They don't have to, because it is their default state!

  2. #62
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Okay, AntiSocial one, here is my argument.

    The human mind has not been able to simultaneously comprehend all the factors that are necessary to optimize our own existence. The result has been to the detriment of our happiness and the sustainability of our culture. The information discovered by science is fragmentary, and it often comes after the damage has already been done.

    At one time human beings did not have these problems, because we had just emerged fresh with dew from the dawn of our evolution. Evolution had optimized many things for us. We had culture and language, but our culture and language had also evolved very slowly. Culture had not broken with the continuum of evolution, and many things about culture worked together without the conflicts we have in our more complex societies.

    Take just one example, parenting practices. Much scientific data now proves the advantages of the way traditional cultures and hunter gatherer societies have always treated their infants. The popular book, The Happiest Baby on the Block, observes that in many cultures around the world, babies rarely cry. A Harvard study proved that prolonged crying floods the infant body with cortisol, a stress hormone. It also deprives the baby of oxygen. Other studies have proved the benefits of kinetic stimulation for babies - that is, for babies to be rocked a lot or to otherwise get a lot of motion. Still other studies have proved that when babies are touched and held a lot, they have more growth hormone. Still other research has followed populations that immigrate to the US, finding that as they adopt US parenting practices, more dysfunction is also correlated. This brief overview of a sampling of data is just the tip of the iceberg. One good source of exhaustive research on this subject is the book Baby Matters. A less scientific source, but nonetheless a valuable account of one woman's keen observations of a South American tribe and especially its parenting practices, is The Continuum Concept. What it adds up to is that babies have a psychology that they have evolved.

    It's too bad that there were pseudo-scientific experts, after the industrial revolution, who persuaded women not to follow their heart for fear of spoiling their babies. So, once a woman living in a society like America learns this, then she might set out to parent her baby in a more traditional way. She soon learns that it is very hard to do without living in a tribe and being active outdoors. To give a baby the kind of care that the baby gets in a tribe or village is just about impossible. What happens is that the woman gets exhausted and resentful of her baby. Her husband often gets resentful and jealous.

    It does not stop there. In a hunter gatherer society, the women were often economic equals. They certainly did not center their whole day upon taking care of their baby. They did adult activities with other adults while wearing their baby and with their hands free. When their babies were old enough to crawl, they let the babies crawl freely, without hovering over them. They were simply available for them. When the children got old enough, they were allowed to imitate adults, and by the time they were four, they were contributing more to society than they were burdening it.

    Now, I am a woman isolated in the home, and my employer is allowing me to work from home on a part-time basis using my computer. But I have to do it at night, because while my baby is happy as can be if I carry him around outside, he finds it boring to sit in my lap while I am on my computer. Humans did not evolve with their babies sitting in their laps while they sat around on their butts.

    I am only giving this example because my experience has made it obvious to me why babies are happier and easier in a stone age society. When you think about it, the babies are outside all the time, they're being carried all the time, and they always have something interesting to look at. They get all the motion they want and need. But nobody has to put forth a special effort to give the babies the type of experience they want. Whenever I wear my baby in a carrier and I am in motion and he has something to look at, he does not fuss. Withing five minutes of me sitting still, he is whiney. It's not rocket science. Just spend time with a baby after giving thought to the evolutionary psychology of babies, and the patterns will become painfully obvious.

    Now ponder this absurdity. Human women are the most intelligent of all the female mammals. Human babies are the most helpless of all young. They require the most care. If they don't get this care, they don't get the psychological foundation they need - trust and security. Yet for mothers who live in modern society to give their babies this care, they must do it under conditions that exhaust them and drive them crazy, conditions no other female animal has to endure. And this happens in spite of medical advances to keep two month old fetuses alive out of the womb. In spite of products such as bouncers, swings, and infinite other gadgets and gizmos.

    We are talking about the very foundation of human happiness in society. And look at all of the things that are so logical, the reasons why this absurdity has to exist. So logical, so practical. The problem is that so many things appear logical and practical when viewed with tunnel vision. If somebody doesn't care about peoples' personal experiences, I guess they never have to be troubled with the consequences of their tunnel vision, and they can go on thinking oh so clearly and oh so confidently.

    I could give other examples. I have not touched on sustainability. I have not raised the issue of whether the GNP is the best measure of how a society is doing. I have not discussed global warming, Peak Oil, nuclear proliferation, the population explosion or other problems.

    The point of this example is that improvements have created problems. Solutions to problems have created more problems. Verbal, logical thinking is linear. It is fragmentary. It is like a flashlight that can only illuminate a small spot at a time. Pattern recognition and holistic thinking, which I suppose are N, are necessary for grasping interrelationships. But even N can't grasp all the pertinent interrelationships at once.

    Maybe this is where the SJs come in. Maybe there is a form of conservatism that would have prevented the mess we are in now. Maybe there would have been a way, if all the functions and types were in balance, for society to innovate and culture to evolve without in the process losing our continuum with evolution.

    And maybe the SPs would come in because we would not have set the reality principle so much against the pleasure principle. There are hunter gatherers who do not have a word for "work". They just have words for all their activities. They like to "work". But when they work a party atmosphere prevails. And all the people have many skills in crafts.

    The impact is felt the only way it can be felt, one individual at a time, one personal experience at a time. Every idea that has anything to do with human existence at some point must intersect with human experience; and it is always personal experience, there is no other kind. There is no full understanding of anything that affects people without understanding what it looks like in terms of lived experience. F comes in because of caring about how things affect people.

    I'm looking at this through the MBTI lens because that is what you seem to want to debate. I actually think there are many other lenses, and MBTI is but one mental model.

    Before I sign off, let me explain what I am not arguing.

    I'm not arguing in favor of primitivism.

    I'm not arguing that all tribal peoples are noble savages.

    I'm not arguing that human values are derived from nature.

    I'm not arguing that our present society is not natural. It is impossible for anything not to be natural.

    What I'm arguing is that there was a continuum with evolution which was lost and which has not yet found any adequate substitute in the human intellect.

    I would like to hope for the possibility of recovering early knowledge and integrating it with advanced civilization. But I know that in practice there is nothing for us to do but muddle through. Nothing so elegant as what I would like to hope for is likely to happen. But at the very least I hope to communicate that, on net balance, the most helpful and useful thing for the human enterprise on Earth is not overconfidence in tunnel vision intellectualizing or fragmentary thinking.

  3. #63
    Rats off to ya! Mort Belfry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    What exactly is the debate? It seems undefined. Of course that could be a sign the NFs are winning.
    Why do we always come here?

    I guess we'll never know.

    It's like a kind of torture,
    To have to watch this show.

  4. #64
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mort Belfry View Post
    What exactly is the debate? It seems undefined. Of course that could be a sign the NFs are winning.
    I think now that I'm arguing mostly for the value of N to balance out T, guided by F. I think that AntiSocial one is saying that the world would be a better place with more T and no F. I don't think he's said anything about N yet. But I'll let AntiSocial one summarize his main argument.

  5. #65
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SquirrelTao View Post
    Yes, I know I could have challenged you for proof of your assertion or something like that. Thing is, I want my debates to be interesting, even if it means taking more risks. Playing it only by safe strategies is boring to me.
    After reading this many people have probably started a prayer that Obama is not thinking like you.


    Try complex ones, I think you will like them.


    Which are? ...
    I will take this one as joke.


    And now we have both made unsupported assertions.
    But that was the plan.



    Quote Originally Posted by SquirrelTao View Post
    It started out being in my mind about NF vs. NT. Now it appears to have turned into T vs. N and F.
    I don't see reason why you are saying that there is no N on my side?


    Quote Originally Posted by SquirrelTao View Post
    I think there's a lot to this, but I would like to point out that women were gatherers and made crafts and grew agricultural plants and did fishing, so they related to nature as well. In tribal societies women have more help with caring for their babies. Also they wear their babies and have their hands free. Babies are much easier and happier. Thus women find it easier to combine mothering with making an economic contribution to their society. I would relate my experience with my baby, with trying to get as close as possible to more traditional parenting practices in postmodern America. But then AntiSocial one would say I am feeling it too personally. So I guess I can't share valuable insights that come from my personal experience if they are relevant. Sorry.
    You have other threads and PMs so I don't see the problem.

    Seriously, there is no reason why should I try to stop you in this.


    Quote Originally Posted by SquirrelTao View Post
    I think now that I'm arguing mostly for the value of N to balance out T, guided by F. I think that AntiSocial one is saying that the world would be a better place with more T and no F. I don't think he's said anything about N yet. But I'll let AntiSocial one summarize his main argument.
    I am saying that entire societys need to move more towards the T.

    Now I finally have the time for your first big argument.
    Last edited by Virtual ghost; 09-01-2008 at 01:19 PM.

  6. #66
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I will take this one as joke.
    Why? You said you would use classical definitions of right and wrong but did not say what those definitions are. I was being serious. I thought you were talking about something in classical Greek philosophy, perhaps. If you weren't, then I don't know what you meant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I don't see reason why you are saying the that there is no N on my side?
    No, I didn't say that. But you're not making any arguments on behalf of N so far. Just T.

  7. #67
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    I find your argument quite idealistic.

    The entire first half about the babies is nonsense by a large degree.
    Entire thing can be debunked with just one argument.

    What was the death rate back then?

    The chance that your baby can die in very young age back then was something like 30- 50%.

    So if your son's biggest problem is that he will be bored from time to time and become imperfect in chemical/medical sense in some moments.
    In that case I will say that this is actually extremely cheap price for what you get.
    Back then people did not live longer then 20-25 years. Today 75-80 is quite normal in developed world.

    If you want him to fell better that is ok but your baby is actually blessed because he is almost never in real danger.

    Also wait for a few years and then ask yourself again the question about him and computers.


    You are debating like advanced civilization is something that can be avoided.

    In the beginning there were first humans and knowledge started to accumulate. But humans are mortal so one generation dies but the next one shows once again same enthusiasm.
    With this mechanism it is unavoidable that things come to current state.


    Surely the most credit for that belongs to NTs and since the beginning we have strong opposition from other groups that are saying that our ways are very questionable.

    However I think that the topic you have opened is very good for debating
    T and F.
    I said that entire thing should go more towards the T for a reason.


    So far in my life I haven't seen F that doesn't like children and babies (having one is a different thing) and even if that kind of Fs does exist they are minority.
    Even F inside thinker can do the exactly same thing.


    This is enough to cause some serious problems.

    Why people like to have so many children?

    Their organism was created for situations where huge part does not get the chance for procreation. So you had to have at least 4 of 5 children just to stay at the same level.

    But as the knowledge grows the situation comes to late 19.century.
    In that time period, population started to grow rapidly. So some 130 years after that population is about 6 times larger then it was 130 years ago.


    Today there is about 6.8 billion people and about 85% of them live in undeveloped world. If we have so many people that mean that we have at least 1.5 billion couples that can have a child. Some of them already had it. But even if all of them have only one child that is still 1.5 billion people.
    Plus all those children that are growing up today and they will have children in the future. So problem is how to make everybody to create only one child.
    They raise much more, then one by default so this is very hard to do.
    Also parents will stay alive for a long time. So in the end number is going towards the sky. But even if we get only one child per couple we will have serious problems.

    So why did we come to this situation?

    If you ask me, we are here exactly because people were not rational enough.
    They were not thinking about the consequences or they were arrogant enough to leave everything to next generation or they were thinking that their only goal/ purpose is to reproduce as much as possible.
    In the case that someone has done the math he/she could have seen the problem long before situation becomes critical.
    Probably that happen but this people were so outnumbered and against the flow that they could not do anything about it.


    I will leave it at this.

  8. #68
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SquirrelTao View Post
    Why? You said you would use classical definitions of right and wrong but did not say what those definitions are. I was being serious. I thought you were talking about something in classical Greek philosophy, perhaps. If you weren't, then I don't know what you meant.



    No, I didn't say that. But you're not making any arguments on behalf of N so far. Just T.


    1. I was talking about
    - people live happy life = good
    - people live unhappy life = bad



    2. My N is there but I use N in a differnt way then you. So you probably don't
    recognize it.

  9. #69
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I will leave it at this.
    You have previously asserted that the T function should gain more influence in the world. The only argument you have so far floated to support your assertion is the argument that too much F influence leads to too many children which leads to overpopulation.

    Okay, let's take this argument at face value. If it is true, then what we should find is that higher birth rates in a population are correlated with higher numbers of people in the population who score as F instead of T on the MBTI type indicator test. Do you have the data to prove this?

    Are you sure that's the only argument you want to make to build your own case?

    I'll see what your response to this question is, before I get back to defending my own argument.

  10. #70
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Isn't it that S types have more kids than Ns, not Fs more than Ts?
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

Similar Threads

  1. [JCF] xNTP vs. xNTJ In Logic and Debate
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-21-2015, 09:33 PM
  2. Male NFs vs. Female NTs: Who has it harder?
    By ajblaise in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 05-18-2010, 03:11 PM
  3. [NT] NT's, arguments and attitude to other NT's in debate
    By slowriot in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-08-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. Who makes better world leaders- NFs Vs NTs?
    By Riva in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 05-19-2009, 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