User Tag List

First 11192021222331 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 414

  1. #201
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I think you might agree that very much of society and the desires of its people are built around the avoidance of death. That's what security and sustenance are all about.
    Definitely not. It's not all about that.

    If it were solely about survival, no one would be fat, 'cause they'd take just as much as they needed, and stop there.

    We wouldn't build guns and missiles, 'cause we'd have made alliances long ago. Surely, the survival instinct has got a pretty big stake on responsibility, but let's not get carried away with this self endowed nobility and say we're concerned security in the raw.

    So we're working within the bounds of life alone. Society aims to create guarantees other then death. In fact, many people feel like society should guarantee them an escape from death, hence the debate about the "right to health-care" going on in this country right now.
    Uhm... society expects society to keep society from dying?

    I think you're referring to too many parties with the same word. I can't figure out what you're really saying.
    we fukin won boys

  2. #202
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Definitely not. It's not all about that.

    If it were solely about survival, no one would be fat, 'cause they'd take just as much as they needed, and stop there.

    We wouldn't build guns and missiles, 'cause we'd have made alliances long ago. Surely, the survival instinct has got a pretty big stake on responsibility, but let's not get carried away with this self endowed nobility and say we're concerned security in the raw.
    Well, I actually said security and sustenance.
    I think people get fat as a result of malfunctioning instinctual responses to over-processed and easily accessible food, but that's kind of a different matter.

    Weapons definitely are created for security. Missiles exist because two nations tend to consider each other seperate, untrustworthy parties that need to be defended against.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Uhm... society expects society to keep society from dying?

    I think you're referring to too many parties with the same word. I can't figure out what you're really saying.
    People gather into societies and consent to their rules and limitations because people desire to live, and they can trust to live more in a society than in anarchy. So, theoretically, the aim of society, based on the reason it even maintains existence, is to preserve the life of its people (and if you succeed in that, a little prosperity is nice, too).
    If there's an element here that could be considered different from security, then it might be ambition. It generally requires someone ambitious to become a bandit leader, and requires someone ambitious to go from being a roving bandit to a stationary bandit (which eventually becomes a despot and so on).
    However, I think even ambition is a result of the drive for self-preservation.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #203
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Well, I actually said security and sustenance.
    The two can be combined in that they serve the same function. Survival.
    I think people get fat as a result of malfunctioning instinctual responses to over-processed and easily accessible food, but that's kind of a different matter.
    It absolutely is not. Unless of course you renege on your original point -- after all, you're the one who said society aims only to provide sustenance and security.
    Weapons definitely are created for security. Missiles exist because two nations tend to consider each other seperate, untrustworthy parties that need to be defended against.
    Er.. what about the NRA? What about hunting for sport? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?


    People gather into societies and consent to their rules and limitations because people desire to live, and they can trust to live more in a society than in anarchy.
    Penguins live in society. They force the smaller ones and the weaker ones to the outside of the group, so predators will attack those first, and so they can shove those same members into the unsure waters to find out if the waters are safe. Humans are no different. Is it really about trust or is it about having a barrier? 'Cause... historically, that's what anthropologists have come up with, and recently psychology is yielding a lot of the same.

    It makes sense. We don't naturally protect others instead of ourselves. Altruism is nearly impossible, for self sacrifice and newtons third law of motion are in constant conflict.

    So, theoretically, the aim of society, based on the reason it even maintains existence, is to preserve the life of its people (and if you succeed in that, a little prosperity is nice, too).
    Society is composed of individuals, all jockeying for their own good -- just like the penquins; capitalism. The ones on top, stay on top. Or in the middle. Let's drop the nobility. It's not real.

    We're all protecting ourselves, which sometimes helps others, and sometimes hurts them.
    we fukin won boys

  4. #204
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post

    Penguins live in society. They force the smaller ones and the weaker ones to the outside of the group, so predators will attack those first, and so they can shove those same members into the unsure waters to find out if the waters are safe. Humans are no different. Is it really about trust or is it about having a barrier? 'Cause... historically, that's what anthropologists have come up with, and recently psychology is yielding a lot of the same.

    It makes sense. We don't naturally protect others instead of ourselves. Altruism is nearly impossible, for self sacrifice and newtons third law of motion are at constant odds.

    Society is composed of individuals, all jockeying for their own good -- just like the penquins; capitalism. The ones on top, stay on top. Or in the middle. Let's drop the nobility. It's not real.

    We're all protecting ourselves, which sometimes helps others, and sometimes hurts them.
    I don't think I've said much about nobility. The point is, if you study the concept of collective action, you'll find that we as a social species serve ourselves better by participating in a society. Such advantages are the only reason a society exists. This is why the "purpose" of society is to provide(let's be broad now) benefits to the people who are a part of it.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #205
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Moved Consent posts to Pedophilia and Age of Consent.

  6. #206
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I don't think I've said much about nobility.
    No, but you implied it.
    The point is, if you study the concept of collective action, you'll find that we as a social species serve ourselves better by participating in a society.
    Did ya read my post? Seriously... I said that myself. I even stated the reason.

    Such advantages are the only reason a society exists. This is why the "purpose" of society is to provide(let's be broad now) benefits to the people who are a part of it.
    Ugh...

    Participation in society is to gain benefits from the group that are offered by collecting in numbers. Society does nothing. It's abstract. It's what the smaller components of society do, that gives the benefits.

    Schools of fish. Penguins. Dens of lions. If there's concentration, then there's high likelihood that only some of them will get eaten, or killed, or will fall down a well, where with groups, (society is a group) the wild boar can't catch us all; the soldier can't kill us all; we won't all fall down into the same hole like lemmings.
    we fukin won boys

  7. #207
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    No, but you implied it.
    You interpeted it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Did ya read my post? Seriously... I said that myself. I even stated the reason.
    Yes, I did, and you're right, we are on the same page.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Ugh...

    Participation in society is to gain benefits from the group that are offered by collecting in numbers. Society does nothing. It's abstract. It's what the smaller components of society do, that gives the benefits.

    Schools of fish. Penguins. Dens of lions. If there's concentration, then there's high likelihood that only some of them will get eaten, or killed, or will fall down a well, where with groups, (society is a group) the wild boar can't catch us all; the soldier can't kill us all; we won't all fall down into the same hole like lemmings.
    Yes? I know this to be true.
    What are you getting it? There seems to be an argument without a disagreance.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #208
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I've heard this argument before and it always drives me crazy. It comes from a mindset that assumes everyone votes based on selfish personal interest. "I don't have any money, so I should vote for the people who will take away rich people's money and give it to me". You're calling people chumps for voting according to what they think is in the best general interest instead of their own personal interest. If they don't have personal wealth and are still conservative, I call that being a person of conviction, not being a chump.

    Would you have the same reaction to a rich person that voted liberal? No, you would say that they can see beyond themselves to the greater good. What's the difference?


    People do vote out of personal interest! Hahaha, FM, I thought I was supposed to be the idealistic one!

    Unless somehow it can be argued that it's in the best interest for everyone to vote for tax breaks for the wealthy? People totally vote for their own best interests when it comes to initiatives and laws when it actually affects them. When it doesn't, I'm sure people are more generous.

    I don't even think that's a pessimistic view of people, to me it's just politics. And btw, while I never worked directly for an elected official, I have been trained in running campaigns, involved with lobbying efforts/NGOs/PACs, and just exposed to people/groups doing 'poltical work' (I mean, I lived in DC, it's hard to avoid) and consider myself politically active myself.

    So partly I have a very hard time divorcing those engaged with the political process with 'average voters' (?) I mean...have you seen people who campaigned for Kerry in the last election? Some of them practically had break-downs when he lost. They worked so hard campaigning in city after city they forgot holidays and their own birthdays. Yes they did it for their ideals -- but they banked those ideals on a particular candidate and his party/platform and they were personally extremely invested. So you could argue by affiliating themselves directly with the campaign, they were working out of self-interest...?

    I dunno, maybe I've just gotten used to rabid political interest/involvement (in DC it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on party affiliation/political preference! hahahaha)

    Anywhoo, for me self-interest encompasses principles, attitudes, and group identification -- group self-interest.

    That's how allegiances (psychic, social, and formal) are formed and it's what partisan political systems are built on. In many states you can't even vote outside your party as you have to register as Democrat or Republican (or Independent) period. It's assumed you'll stick that way till death. When it comes down to elections, people 97.89% vote along party lines, not necessarily along issues. Because it's assumed that your party (group self-interest) shares enough of your values/principles/views that it's a solid bet.

    Constituents/voters identify with others similar to them and choose the party/candidate that that has their self-interest as a priority. And with the party system, if you don't support your group/party, then there's a good chance there'll be no one in office who supports your principles/views/ideals.

    Generally speaking, the wealthy who identify with big business will vote pro-big business, anti-union, pro-tax cuts for wealthy.

    And the wealthy who identify with hippies will vote pro-hippie.

    Differences in voting pattersn amongst groups generally can be explained by looking at sub group identifications. Not all wealthy people have the same allegiances or belong to the same pyschodemographic groups, so they won't vote the same.

    Maybe I interpret broadly, but generally what we assume to be 'best for everyone else' is based on our own self-interest and own particular POV.

    Are you saying you think most people vote issue to issue irregardless of party identification and will vote opposite of their personal feelings? I guess maybe I'm not understanding your definition of 'self-interest'
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux

    Johari/Nohari

  9. #209
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    19

    Default Fi vs Fe

    i'm trying to figure out which one i identify with more
    can someone please offer some guidance?

  10. #210
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    If you do a search on site, you should pick up least a few threads regarding Fi vs Fe, it's been a prominent topic. If you have more questions after that, feel free to ask.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. [Fe] How can I use Fe instead of Fi?
    By Myths Of Zephyr in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 11-04-2016, 12:18 AM
  2. esfp/isfp: se versus fi; who is leading the race?
    By wolfy in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-17-2015, 06:22 PM
  3. [Fi] Fe in an Fi household (Welp.)
    By Ling in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-25-2012, 07:59 PM
  4. What's the difference between hurt Fe and hurt Fi?
    By Thalassa in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 07-25-2010, 01:32 AM
  5. [NF] Living Fe from an Fi perspective
    By sculpting in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-09-2009, 07:43 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