Mbti and Protestantism

[Mole]

President Kennedy said he wanted to be known publicly as an Irish Catholic and privately as a Protestant.

So Protestant values and practice permeate the USA from top to bottom.

And Personal Testimony is a hallmark of Protestantism.

And Personal Testimony is the basis of mbti.

So mbti is a Protestant sect.

But mbti takes its kudos from acting scientific.

This is an old wheeze in Protestantism, going right back to Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science in the 19th century.

 

[reckful]

Ronald Reagan said ketchup was a vegetable.

So sloppy analysis permeates the USA from top to bottom.

And Faulty Logic is a hallmark of sloppy analysis.

And Faulty Logic is the basis of the OP.

So the OP is a watery vegetable.

But the OP purports to be giving us something to chew on.

This is an old wheeze, whatever that is.

 

[Mole]

Ronald Reagan said ketchup was a vegetable.

So sloppy analysis permeates the USA from top to bottom.

And Faulty Logic is a hallmark of sloppy analysis.

And Faulty Logic is the basis of the OP.

So the OP is a watery vegetable.

But the OP purports to be giving us something to chew on.

This is an old wheeze, whatever that is.

How appreciative you are. Thank heavens I can put you in Ignore as you are not a moderator.

 

[skylights]

President Kennedy said he wanted to be known publicly as an Irish Catholic and privately as a Protestant.

This is interesting and the first time I've ever heard of this. Do you know when he said it, and the context it was in?

Having been raised Catholic in the South, I do feel the little bit of Catholic/Protestant tension in the country and find it an interesting cultural divide. Protestantism certainly seems to be more mainstream and more influential on the US as a whole. Indeed a significant difference is in personal testimony versus the collective Church, and also in literal versus figurative interpretation of the Bible.

It would be interesting to look at how psychology as a whole and Christianity have interacted in the history of the US. I remember having a class discussion in neuroscience about how the brain is wired to have "spiritual" experiences, and talking about whether that means we were made by a creator for spiritual experiences, or if it's a vestigial effect that indicates spiritual experiences being nothing more than a leftover accident. On a more practical note, I am friends with a physician who just helped fund the opening of a low-cost counseling center which also includes Christian counseling at the client's request, which I think is pretty neat.

Just like religion and many other constructs I tend to think the MBTI is neither right nor wrong and is just what you make of it. Maybe forthcoming years will demonstrate it to be more or less useful.

 

[Mole]

I remember having a class discussion in neuroscience about how the brain is wired to have "spiritual" experiences, and talking about whether that means we were made by a creator for spiritual experiences, or if it's a vestigial effect that indicates spiritual experiences being nothing more than a leftover accident.

I have wondered the same thing and have found an interesting answer in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes.

 

[Mole]

Just like religion and many other constructs I tend to think the MBTI is neither right nor wrong and is just what you make of it. Maybe forthcoming years will demonstrate it to be more or less useful.

Yes, and many tend to think that the mediums we use, such as print or the telephone, are only what we make of them. When we learn in Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan that each medium changes us in particular ways.

So we create a medium then the medium creates us.

The medium is the message.

 

[skylights]

I have wondered the same thing and have found an interesting answer in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes.

Ah, you know, I did a project in college on the pineal gland (which Descartes believed was the housing for the mind/body divide) and mind vs body which was fascinating. I'll have to look this up.

Yes, and many tend to think that the mediums we use, such as print or the telephone, are only what we make of them. When we learn in Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan that each medium changes us in particular ways.

So we create a medium then the medium creates us.

The medium is the message.

Interesting way to look at it. Lately I have been thinking very much about how much more important/influential structure is than content, which is fascinating. It's almost like structure colors content so much that one can almost negate content and simply interpret it as a function of structure. It has incredible implications for the "what is more important, process or product?" question.

 

[Mole]

Interesting way to look at it. Lately I have been thinking very much about how much more important/influential structure is than content, which is fascinating. It's almost like structure colors content so much that one can almost negate content and simply interpret it as a function of structure. It has incredible implications for the "what is more important, process or product?" question.

The content is merely to distract the mind while the medium goes about its work unhindered by the critical mind.

We are a patient anesthetised upon a table by the content, while the medium does its surgical work of rearranging our senses.