NF vs. NT Debate! (Fun and Educational)

[SquirrelTao]

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!

 

[SquirrelTao]

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.

 

[Mort Belfry]

What exactly is the debate? It seems undefined. Of course that could be a sign the NFs are winning.

 

[SquirrelTao]

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.

 

[Virtual ghost]

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[SquirrelTao]

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.

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.

 

[Virtual ghost]

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.

 

[Virtual ghost]

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.

 

[SquirrelTao]

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.

 

[Haphazard]

Isn't it that S types have more kids than Ns, not Fs more than Ts?

 

[sophiedoph]

I would agree it's more S vs. N than T vs. F re: kids. I'm F and happily childfree, as are several of my N friends, even though we are all married. Most of the childfree couples I know, actually, are Ns. My childfree friends include 1 ENFJ, 2 INFJs, 1 ENFP, and 4 INFPs. Several are now beyond childbearing age.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I see that people have didn't get my argument.

What I am saying is that in the case that there was more T (and N) in general population we would never reach this population number.
If all people were more T to some degree then they would create critical mass and stop population boom long before situation comes to current stage.

This is a flaw that is written deep inside of human nature but it is still a flaw


I know sensors that don't have children, so picture is not that black and white for sure.

Also I see the that people don't get what overpopulation really means. I think that people take this problem just as another fact without understanding what that really means.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I would agree it's more S vs. N than T vs. F re: kids. I'm F and happily childfree, as are several of my N friends, even though we are all married. Most of the childfree couples I know, actually, are Ns. My childfree friends include 1 ENFJ, 2 INFJs, 1 ENFP, and 4 INFPs. Several are now beyond childbearing age.

From what I know about you it looks like that you live in highly intelectual environment. This is environmet that should have been created long ago.

Only thing that people should care about here is that poulation does not drop too low.

Also I could turn the sitation on the other side and say that your friends are highly irrationall and I doubt that all of them don't have children because of medical reasons.

Why your friends don't have children?
Probably because something was more important to them then this.
But, by not having children at all you are sabotaging the things you care so much about (intellect) .
Since poplualtion is booming anyway I think that all of us can afford to have extra 100 million children on the planet. Which are in intelectual environment by birth itself.
They can easily be the ones, which will solve many problems and be the foundation of our future progress.


I am arguing about big picture here and there is plenty of exceptions if you go to individual level.

 

[SquirrelTao]

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%.

You seem to have thought that I was making a purist or ideological argument that being as close as possible to the state of nature is always best. That is not the case.I was arguing for the evolved optimizations of multiple cultural factors that were lost as civilization advanced. I was giving childrearing practices as one example where intellect and civilization did not improve upon practices that have been traditional since the stone age. I attributed this to the evolutionary psychology of infants. Current science now reaffirms traditional practices. I offered several examples and then gave a source for further research that is full of much more exhaustive data.

Let me offer an analogy. In the IT department where I used to work, we had a procedures for change control. We were supposed to test changes before implementing them and communicate changes to all affected parties as we implemented them. If unexpected negative consequences occurred, we were to roll back our changes and go back to testing them before implementing them again. So here we have an example of innovation co-existing with maintenance of the optimizations that were previously gained. Or at least that is the purpose and the idea. If you must attribute idealism to me, attribute to me the ideal I actually hold. That is not a perfect analogy to my ideal but I hope that it will be one that an NT can at least partially understand.

It's not that change is bad. The value of risky change varies according to conditions. Right now risky change is highly valuable because the status quo sucks, and it is headed for a crash, anyway. So for post-industrial civilization, risky change that can solve problems to avert a crash is in my opinion quite possibly desirable, but each situation has to evaluated on its own merits.

Yet it will always be desirable in my opinion to communicate with people who are affected by change and involve them in the decisions. It will always be desirable in my opinion to pay attention to as many factors as possible and to attempt to optimize them rather than looking only at one goal. I am advocating for looking at the big picture and the long term. I am advocating for respect for more goals besides profit and power. Goals such as preservation of the ecosystem. Goals such as human happiness. Goals such as sustainability.

If you want more examples besides babies then just think of the hurricanes pounding America's gulf coast because of the change in weather patterns due to global warming. Just think of rising waters that will wipe out coastal cities and even whole island nations. Oops. Think of the Army Corps of Engineers planting Kudzu to prevent ground erosion, then kudzu spreading all over the US south. Oops. Pursuit of a narrow goal. No respect given to previously evolved optimizations. Solving some problems to create others. Oil was wonderful for a while. Now the world is embroiled in wars over it, and even if alternative energy sources are developed, it will take a lot of energy just to retool the economy to use these new energy sources. Oops.

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.

My point about noting his boredom was that he is not bored by conditions that he would have had in the stone age with no effort from me. Nature, movement. It was an example of an optimization that was lost when we lost our continuum with evolution.

And I take his boredom seriously because it signals that his developmental needs are not being met. If he is bored it's a sign that he is not learning. Moreoever, if I allow his boredom to get the point where he cries, then I will teach him to cry as a demand for attention. This is the beginning of a process that can result in a spoiled three year old child.

Back then people did not live longer then 20-25 years. Today 75-80 is quite normal in developed world.

I am not saying that nothing in advanced civilization is an improvement. I'm only pointing out that tunnel vision goal oriented improvements have solved some problems while creating other problems. Evolved optimizations have been lost.

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

No, he's almost never in real physical danger. If I were not informed, he could be in real psychological danger. He could be in danger of failing to begin his life with a foundation of trust and security. This could profoundly impact his chances to be happy as an adult. If I did not meet his infantile needs, as an adult, he could try to meet his unmet infantile needs in inappropriate ways, such as through drug addiction or alcoholism.

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

The evolutionary psychology for my child will unfold so that, if all goes well and I can give his psyche the conditions appropriate to his optimal development, then he will go through stages like this. He will crawl freely exploring his environment and entertaining himself, and I simply be available for him and respond to him. Then he will learn more and more to imitate adults and by being included in as much as possible of adult life. To meet his need to imitate, he will have his own little computer. When he is three years old he will play with his peers, and his entertainment and social life will not primarily come from his mother.

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

I am debating like it is possible to learn from cultures that are closer to the evolutionary continuum and to recover and integrate as much as possible from them. I have done so with my parenting practices, wearing my baby or carrying him most of the time, until he is of crawling age. Once he is crawling I will continue to do so by giving him maximum freedom to explore in a babyproofed environment. This is only one example and it gets harder the older the child gets. Other ways of attempting to recover the optimizations of continuum cultures are more difficult. But we can still try to think about optimizing multiple factors rather than pursuing narrow goals. We can still communicate with affected people when making decisions that impact them. There are many things we could and should do better in advanced civilization.

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.

The future will be what we make it. There is more than one possible path and more than one possible result. We are constrained within certain parameters, but within those parameters, we have many choices to play with. Constraints do not equal determinism.

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.

You mean scientists and inventors, I imagine? How do you know they have all been NTs? I think it just as likely for a scientist to be an ST as an NT. And believe it or not, INFP and other types go into science, too.

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.

Population rate reduction correlates with industrialization. It also correlates with rising status and education of women.

The only humane way to resolve the population problem is to devote resources to colonizing Mars.

EDIT: Industrialization and feminism alone cannot make advanced civilizations sustainable, due to Peak Oil and many other environmental issues.

 

[Virtual ghost]

1. If you take a look at your post you will see that there is plenty of parts that guide reader to conclude that you feel quite romantic about those times. I can quote some parts if that is what it takes.


2.

You mean scientists and inventors, I imagine? How do you know they have all been NTs? I think it just as likely for a scientist to be an ST as an NT. And believe it or not, INFP and other types go into science, too.

If you read carefully you will see that there is "most credit" in the sentence.
But those who have done shaking of the big picture were mostly NTs.
When I take a look at my hard science Ph.D professors I see NT, NT, NT, NT, NT... and It look like most of them are introverted. Modern hard science is quite abstract and hard, with plenty of infomation. So many tipes don't have the patience to become experts.

3.

The only humane way to resolve the population problem is to devote resources to colonizing Mars.

I guess that, if people are reading too much science fiction it is unavoidable that things like this appear. But none the less I will give the real NT answer.

Mars is 6800 kilometers in diameter and if we estimate that it is a perfect sphere you will find that it has a surface of 145 000 000 square kilometers + about 15% because of mountains and hills - pretty much same amount that is under polar dry ice caps.

But if you send 3 billion people you will get situation that you need to turn entire Mars into a giant city and place for crops. Because population density is about 21 on 1 square kilometer.
Can we even say that 100 people were lucky enough to leave the planet on the short time..
Average distance of the Moon and Earth is about 380 000 kilometers.
Mars when is in the point when it is the closest to the earth I is about 60 000 000 kilometers away. We don’t even have base on the Moon and you what to send billions to the Mars.
How will you transport them, what will those people eat and drink?
How will you keep them warm since normal temperatures are deep below the freezing point?
Also will you kidnap many people from undeveloped countries on Earth so that you could send them there?
I could talk about this more but I think you get the point.





4. That huge part about what should be done in the world, once again confirms my argument that we are in trouble exactly because someone didn’t think when was the time to think.

You are debating on the way I am finding quite odd, because I am getting impression that you find me quite conservative,
I guess that it is time to start showing the side that other people see as anti-social.


So far you didn't destroy my argument that in the case, that human beings are more T the entire population problem would not even exist in that case.

But this argument can be expanded quite well.

Why they didn't act?

The following argument people always find highly controversial but I think that it must be said here.

When you say something like "Does god really exists?" huge number of people will give you the look and they will find strange that someone says that he is an Atheist. But somehow they will get over it.


But if you start a debate "Do countries really exist?" you will encounter much bigger resistance.
That is because all of them are connected to their state in many ways: economic , emotional , sense of attachment ...............

So, can we say that all those countries really exist or they are just product of our imagination?


I say that they are product of our imagination because of large number of reasons.
If I become citizen of another country did I also become member of the nation, what if I just learn the language and spend my free time there as a tourist?
Am I capable of making someone pregnant in that country?

Now someone could say that they have a culture they have a language that they have …..
But culture changes as times go by ,so the culture you are actually “worshiping “ did not exist 50 years ago and it will not exist some 50 years from now.
Same works for language.
Then someone could say “Yes but we have permanent values, such as constitution “

In that case I could say “Let’s be realistic. Do you honestly believe that someone will follow that constitution in the 8397. century?
That constitution is not even 3 centuries old and it has trouble regulating many things that existed in the times when our grandparents were young. Plus the rate of progress is accelerating.
Also, if it happens that one day sky opens up and Jesus comes down to Earth once again.
I guarantee you that this constitution will not mean anything to you in that case. “

So can we say that overwhelming majority of world population is not thinking straight?

I think we can, and that the person must have many properties that he/she even starts to think in this direction.
I mean this is accepted all over the world and no one is questioning the sanity of entire thing.

So, why our progenitors were not careful about the population boom?
Because they were in competition against each other and big picture was irrelevant to them.

This is one very good example of how people are using their feeling in the wrong way and they claim that they can make the right choice.
Those feelings named here, that all people on this world feel all the time are something that remained from our tribal way of life and if we don’t find a way to control them. It could lead us to total catastrophe.

I am asking here and now can you prove that the Cold war was not directly caused by Fi?

 

[SquirrelTao]

1. If you take a look at your post you will see that there is plenty of parts that guide reader to conclude that you feel quite romantic about those times. I can quote some parts if that is what it takes.

It doesn't matter whether I feel romantic or not. Address my central argument: that the human intellect has too often destroyed evolved optimizations due to tunnel vision.

2.


If you read carefully you will see that there is "most credit" in the sentence.
But those who have done shaking of the big picture were mostly NTs.
When I take a look at my hard science Ph.D professors I see NT, NT, NT, NT, NT... and It look like most of them are introverted. Modern hard science is quite abstract and hard, with plenty of infomation. So many tipes don't have the patience to become experts.

How do you know they are NT? Have they all taken the MBTI test and shared their test results with you? Maybe you are seeing your bias everywhere you look.

3.


I guess that, if people are reading too much science fiction it is unavoidable that things like this appear. But none the less I will give the real NT answer.

Mars is 6800 kilometers in diameter and if we estimate that it is a perfect sphere you will find that it has a surface of 145 000 000 square kilometers + about 15% because of mountains and hills - pretty much same amount that is under polar dry ice caps.

But if you send 3 billion people you will get situation that you need to turn entire Mars into a giant city and place for crops. Because population density is about 21 on 1 square kilometer.
Can we even say that 100 people were lucky enough to leave the planet on the short time..
Average distance of the Moon and Earth is about 380 000 kilometers.
Mars when is in the point when it is the closest to the earth I is about 60 000 000 kilometers away. We don’t even have base on the Moon and you what to send billions to the Mars.
How will you transport them, what will those people eat and drink?
How will you keep them warm since normal temperatures are deep below the freezing point?
Also will you kidnap many people from undeveloped countries on Earth so that you could send them there?
I could talk about this more but I think you get the point.

Here you've won the argument, I will admit it.

4. That huge part about what should be done in the world, once again confirms my argument that we are in trouble exactly because someone didn’t think when was the time to think.

Yes, but whenever people think, they have to think using available information. We never have all the available information. We never have a God's eye view. That doesn't mean that we should not think or act on our thoughts. It does mean it would be wise to have more respect for evolved optimizations whether in nature or culture. But even when there is available information to avoid certain mistakes, mistakes are still made, due to tunnel vision thinking. There is a narrow goal orientation. The wide net of relationships is not adequately considered even when it is possible for it to be considered - even when scientific information - like ecological information for instance - does exist.

You are debating on the way I am finding quite odd, because I am getting impression that you find me quite conservative,

Not at all. I don't know you but I imagine you to be a student who is very young and bright and eager to move into the future and impatient with people in your culture who may cling more to the past. You are a very sympathetic character to me although I may disagree with you on certain things.

I guess that it is time to start showing the side that other people see as anti-social.

Don't let other people define you. It's hard, when people have negative expectations of you, to avoid living down to their expectations. But you are an INTJ. You are a member of the few, the proud, the stubborn. You can do it!

So far you didn't destroy my argument that in the case, that human beings are more T the entire population problem would not even exist in that case.

See, now it seems like you're just asserting that my logical points didn't matter, because they couldn't have been logical, because I can't be logical, because I'm not an NT like you. You have not even bothered to respond to my arguments. I'm not just going to let that pass.

Saying that I did not destroy your argument - well, that is not an argument. Expanding further on your faulty premise is also not a very good argument. If your entire premise is wrong, the further conclusions you draw from it are also wrong.

I am asking here and now can you prove that the Cold war was not directly caused by Fi?

[/QUOTE]

No, but I can't prove that unicorns do not exist, either. That means nothing, as you should well know. If you don't know that, then you need to stop carrying your NT card right now.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Don't let other people define you. It's hard, when people have negative expectations of you, to avoid living down to their expectations. But you are an INTJ. You are a member of the few, the proud, the stubborn. You can do it!

If you want to talk about my social status we can even have thread about that. In the case that you know me you would have probably said the exact contrariwise of this. My main problem is that I am too much like that.

How do you know they are NT? Have they all taken the MBTI test and shared their test results with you? Maybe you are seeing your bias everywhere you look.

Ok here is the deal. I am very J so I study them so that I could use that to my advantage (I know, it not totally moral but that is the way I am)

We are talking about 30 people here and only two of them look like, that they are balanced in S and N. One is professor another is assistant. They seem to have complex mind but they are quite large and muscular so I am not sure about them. But everybody else give totally NT vibe
(ideas, conversation style , jokes ...)

How do I know all of this?
I know because I am geology student so we have field trips and when you spend few days with person outside the classrooms you get to know him.
By "outside the classrooms" I mean mountains.

Yes, but whenever people think, they have to think using available information. We never have all the available information. We never have a God's eye view. That doesn't mean that we should not think or act on our thoughts. It does mean it would be wise to have more respect for evolved optimizations whether in nature or culture. But even when there is available information to avoid certain mistakes, mistakes are still made, due to tunnel vision thinking. There is a narrow goal orientation. The wide net of relationships is not adequately considered even when it is possible for it to be considered - even when scientific information - like ecological information for instance - does exist.

The only thing that they needed to know is math for first grade and hundred years ago many knew that. If I have four children and then they have four children, so after few generations trend is not sustainable.
Since two people create four that means that population doubles in every generation.
But no, they were too busy about the position of their country and they were too obsessed with the ideas that were nonsense even back then.

It doesn't matter whether I feel romantic or not. Address my central argument: that the human intellect has too often destroyed evolved optimizations due to tunnel vision.

This is your central argument? (It sounds like a trap)
Why didn't you say so.

I have planned to leave this kind of stuff for the end but if you insist.

No, but I can't prove that unicorns do not exist, either. That means nothing, as you should well know. If you don't know that, then you need to stop carrying your NT card right now

This sounds like a empty threat.(Which are used when you don't have a real argument). I ask because I think that I can prove that that Cold war was the consequences of the Fi.

On the both sides you had people that were in charge of protecting their
tribe(country) and they created a game of accumulating huge number of nukes. We are talking about 40 000 of warheads here. What they were planning to do with all those nukes? If they wanted to level the entire world even 10% + radiation would have been enough.


So it is obvious that this is not about destruction it is about emotions that are in mankind for a long time. Only problem is that errors happen all the time and there is always a broken telephone factor.
So what did you get by this way of behaving. You got civilization on the surface of one planet and it is afraid that it is going to destroy itself.
In the case that we are one person we would be paranoid, narcissoid,
multi-polar and suicidal to some degree as person.
(Really nice combination)
Something like this is unacceptable if you ask me. Playing games like this one. While there is no reason what so ever to do it and the possible loss is of the scale. As level of technology is going up and up this way of acting is more and more dangerous.



When you take a look at the future of mankind you will see that there are only 4 major possible outcomes.

1. Mankind is destroyed by their own weapons (nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons or classic warfare to the end)

2. Mankind stays how it is for a long time so the evolution becomes visible and entire species splits on many species because of that and then those species evolve until you can't even see human form in then or they destroy each other.

3. Mankind is destroyed by natural forces. Forces like virus, crazy level of tectonic activity, asteroid/comet impact, black hole or neutron stars collision and …….

4. Mankind starts to change itself and its environment so that it could expand through out the universe.

Only alternative to those scenarios is that religion is literally right.


Now let me do little analysis of those outcomes.

Scenarios 1 and 3 lead nowhere and probably they could be the end of life on earth as well.

Scenario 2 could be like options 1 and 3 or it could eventually lead to scenario 4.
It is just the longer run.

Scenario 4 is interesting because in that scenario life starts to spread around the universe. But for that you need extremely complicated and capable mind as well as body which can take it. The question is can organic life create life form that has what it takes to succeed. All life forms that are created by evolution are very limited by laws of chemistry and I don't see how this life forms can do what it takes. So it is obvious that inorganic will have to come into play.


Also if inorganic and artificial starts to replacing organic than you have solved one huge problem. For example if you leave one species on 10 different planets they will continue to evolve because of the environment (which is different then other environments on the different planets) and in the end you will get large number of species. But if you start to think about the billions of planets in the universe your end result will suck and since technology level is much higher the wars could be extremely destructive and those wars are not impossible since different species are in conflict.
But that is not the case with inorganic/artificial life because it is not evolving spontaneously. Everybody stay how they are and they can change what they want to change (body parts included).


Also if you take a look at this video that I have already posted long ago you will start to understand our situation and how much we don't have a choice on the long run.

This is who we are today


If I understand term "Tunnel vision" correctly I will say:

Tunnel vision is the only thing we really have.

 

[SquirrelTao]

The only thing that they needed to know is math for first grade and hundred years ago many knew that. If I have four children and then they have four children, so after few generations trend is not sustainable.
Since two people create four that means that population doubles in every generation.
But no, they were too busy about the position of their country and they were too obsessed with the ideas that were nonsense even back then.

I see you're serious about your population argument. I thought you were joking at first. Regardless, with the response above, you didn't really talk to the point I was making. I wasn't making a point specifically about population. It was a general point that I will not keep repeating. I have articulated it already several times farther up the thread.

I also will not repeat the arguments I have already made about the subject of population. Or the arguments that others have made on that topic in this thread.

This is your central argument? (It sounds like a trap)
Why didn't you say so.

Yes, it's my central argument, I've emphasized it and repeated it, and I'm quite serious and sincere about it.

I have planned to leave this kind of stuff for the end but if you insist.

This sounds like a empty threat.(Which are used when you don't have a real argument). I ask because I think that I can prove that that Cold war was the consequences of the Fi.

My point was that the burden of proof did not rest with me. If it's your argument, it's your job to support it. It's not up to me to disprove your unsupported assertions. If you can prove your thesis, great. That's what you should have done in the first place.

On the both sides you had people that were in charge of protecting their
tribe(country) and they created a game of accumulating huge number of nukes. We are talking about 40 000 of warheads here. What they were planning to do with all those nukes? If they wanted to level the entire world even 10% + radiation would have been enough.


So it is obvious that this is not about destruction it is about emotions that are in mankind for a long time. Only problem is that errors happen all the time and there is always a broken telephone factor.
So what did you get by this way of behaving. You got civilization on the surface of one planet and it is afraid that it is going to destroy itself.
In the case that we are one person we would be paranoid, narcissoid,
multi-polar and suicidal to some degree as person.
(Really nice combination)
Something like this is unacceptable if you ask me. Playing games like this one. While there is no reason what so ever to do it and the possible loss is of the scale. As level of technology is going up and up this way of acting is more and more dangerous.



When you take a look at the future of mankind you will see that there are only 4 major possible outcomes.

1. Mankind is destroyed by their own weapons (nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons or classic warfare to the end)

2. Mankind stays how it is for a long time so the evolution becomes visible and entire species splits on many species because of that and then those species evolve until you can't even see human form in then or they destroy each other.

3. Mankind is destroyed by natural forces. Forces like virus, crazy level of tectonic activity, asteroid/comet impact, black hole or neutron stars collision and …….

4. Mankind starts to change itself and its environment so that it could expand through out the universe.

Only alternative to those scenarios is that religion is literally right.


Now let me do little analysis of those outcomes.

Scenarios 1 and 3 lead nowhere and probably they could be the end of life on earth as well.

Scenario 2 could be like options 1 and 3 or it could eventually lead to scenario 4.
It is just the longer run.

Scenario 4 is interesting because in that scenario life starts to spread around the universe. But for that you need extremely complicated and capable mind as well as body which can take it. The question is can organic life create life form that has what it takes to succeed. All life forms that are created by evolution are very limited by laws of chemistry and I don't see how this life forms can do what it takes. So it is obvious that inorganic will have to come into play.


Also if inorganic and artificial starts to replacing organic than you have solved one huge problem. For example if you leave one species on 10 different planets they will continue to evolve because of the environment (which is different then other environments on the different planets) and in the end you will get large number of species. But if you start to think about the billions of planets in the universe your end result will suck and since technology level is much higher the wars could be extremely destructive and those wars are not impossible since different species are in conflict.
But that is not the case with inorganic/artificial life because it is not evolving spontaneously. Everybody stay how they are and they can change what they want to change (body parts included).


Also if you take a look at this video that I have already posted long ago you will start to understand our situation and how much we don't have a choice on the long run.

This is who we are today

Well, AntiSocial, it appears we care about two of the same issues: population and nuclear proliferation. But ironically you would not care about either one of these issues if you had no F in you at all. And you are confusing Feeling with feeling. Certainly human beings have some emotions that are left over from stone age psychology that are getting us into trouble since we advanced our civilization beyond the stone age. But are you certain that NTs do not have stone age psychology, too? I think that is an astoundingly arrogant and naive belief, and I do not believe it is supported by the fledgling science of evolutionary psychology or by the more well established field of cognitive psychology. If you can provide proof that it is, then go for it...

If I understand term "Tunnel vision" correctly I will say:

Tunnel vision is the only thing we really have.

[/QUOTE]

If that is so, then we should be more cautious and more respectful of the evolved optimizations in both nature and culture. People without a God's eye view of reality should not play God. But

You've missed my whole point, and I'm not going to keep repeating it. I stand by it.

I see little to gain from continuing this debate if you are not really going to tackle my arguments - or even pay more than the most cursory and superficial attention to them. You seem incapable of understanding my arguments long enough even to attack them.

Before I sign off, I'll say what I've learned during this exchange. In some other threads I've refined my understanding of T, F, N and S. I think that my thesis is not necessarily about NF vs T. I think it may be more vs. S. Since S is more linear than NT. But I'm not sure. And I don't really want to start a thing of demonizing S now. It is shaky to use MBTI too seriously as a lens or filter, since MBTI is not a science. It is a theory and it has issues.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ok, we have problem of comunication here.
So, can you say you argument once again clearly because I don't understand what exactly you want to prove ?
EDIT: Or could you at least pinpoint where it is written.

Also what do you mean by tunnel vision?
I see that I maybe have wrong picture about it.

Personaly I don't know why you are pointing that I think that I don't have F.
I have never said that I dont have F. It is quite undeveloped but it is there.

Would you be more satisfied if I use more numbers in this thread? That would make my arguments more concrete.

 

[SquirrelTao]

Ok, we have problem of comunication here.
So, can you say you argument once again clearly because I don't understand what exactly you want to prove ?
EDIT: Or could you at least pinpoint where it is written.

Also what do you mean by tunnel vision?
I see that I maybe have wrong picture about it.

Well, here are a few things I've written that repeat the same point in various ways:

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.

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.

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.

Let me offer an analogy. In the IT department where I used to work, we had a procedures for change control. We were supposed to test changes before implementing them and communicate changes to all affected parties as we implemented them. If unexpected negative consequences occurred, we were to roll back our changes and go back to testing them before implementing them again. So here we have an example of innovation co-existing with maintenance of the optimizations that were previously gained.

Yet it will always be desirable in my opinion to communicate with people who are affected by change and involve them in the decisions. It will always be desirable in my opinion to pay attention to as many factors as possible and to attempt to optimize them rather than looking only at one goal. I am advocating for looking at the big picture and the long term. I am advocating for respect for more goals besides profit and power. Goals such as preservation of the ecosystem. Goals such as human happiness. Goals such as sustainability.

Yes, but whenever people think, they have to think using available information. We never have all the available information. We never have a God's eye view. That doesn't mean that we should not think or act on our thoughts. It does mean it would be wise to have more respect for evolved optimizations whether in nature or culture. But even when there is available information to avoid certain mistakes, mistakes are still made, due to tunnel vision thinking. There is a narrow goal orientation. The wide net of relationships is not adequately considered even when it is possible for it to be considered - even when scientific information - like ecological information for instance - does exist.

Would you be more satisfied if I use more numbers in this thread? That would make my arguments more concrete.

No. I don't wish to continue the debate as originally framed. I can already see how we can actually agree more than we disagree. We are both concerned about stone age psychology being out of whack with the world we must deal with now. You want more thought and less emotion, and so you think you need to attack F. Or maybe you're just attacking F because of how the debate has been framed as NT vs. NF. I don't think more thought is bad, but I want more holistic thought and less linear thought. Rather than continue to rehash the same old basic premises, I am now more interested in starting a new discussion thread about evolutionary psychology. I'm curious how that would alter the dialogue. But I need to take a break from the internet for a while so that I can be more productive on my computer.