biases. I don't mean in the sense of an outright "lie" like the "The sky is red", but rather the convincing of a particular concept by selectively introducing it into their biases.
That is to say, something that is false is easily accepted if it fits into your world view... while something true is easily rejected if it does not.
In the example of the stories from the Bible, the stories that "make sense" fit into your world view while the ones that do not are rejected. Selectively taking the "coherent parts", ie: the ones that fit into your world, is, IMO, the definition of bias.
As such, any equivalent story, true or not, that fits into your concept the world would be likely accepted. I'm sure that you do question these stories - more than most - but it still happens.
Absolutely. The question is on methodology. The OP was the question on why the Bible should be considered an authoritive source, and/or why figuratively interpreting such a book wouldn't reduce its authority to nothing.Incidentally, we still use that process regularly on a daily basis -- internal consistency. It is usually our first "screening" technique when we interact with others. If someone appears to us to be saying things that are inconsistent with themselves, we flag it and explore further. Again, it's a very good tool in the toolbox.
For example, I have a couple of books packed away that helped me develop my sense of morality (ie: Moral Calculations, Critical thinking and Communication, although I think I have earlier versions ). There is a reason why I picked those books and that methodology, but rejected religion as a moral authority... that's really the root of my question.
Of course, this is probably not the best thing to be addressing with you, since you aren't really using it in that way...
Me too, heh. I think in that sense we aren't different - and honestly, I don't think anyone is different this way. Some people just shrink their experiences and observations down through bias (including narrow world views like fundamental literalists).No, I suppose ultimately I derive my morality from what I see intuitively as working the best, based on my experiences and observations.
This is what I see as well.I suppose context would determine which approach is more effective.
You mean you think you would change your mind and that you are open to it. Changing types showed me exactly how "open" I thought I was. It wasn't the first time - I'd be surprised to hear that you were never stubborn in changing your mind...Basically, you're right -- I cannot predefine what would change my mind. But I can tell you that I clearly am open to it, as soon as I run across something that seems to carry weight. I am constantly projecting and revising.
Bias is only bias while you are unaware of it. Pretend that this conversation was happening and I was still an INTP. A "topical" change - not much has changed in who I am - yet the nature of the conversation changes. Bias is very dangerous.
Hah hah... a good example of what I was just talking about... Would I of understood if I was "the same as you", an INTP? Would I still not understand if I turned back into an INTP? Once upon a time, I said that Bluewing, you and I all have very different ways of posting - that I wouldn't be surprised if I was an ISTP, you were an INFP and BW was an INTJ. Do you remember the responses? Apparently we did think very much the same then. But now we do not? Now I don't understand, now I am fundamentally different? Have I taken on a new role? Did you change your opinion with just a slight change in a letter in my description? Or did you not believe that I was INTP earlier?Meh. I think you don't really yet understand the mentality, or you see only one facet of it. I can spin this on its head and say that your process is the most likely to be incomplete. I take a risk by projection the rest of the missing picture; you take a risk by refusing to take educated guesses, opting instead for the solidity of known data.
Anyway, back to the type sniping - mine is incomplete because I don't fill it with assumptions. I don't pretend to know either. If coherency is the goal, it's easy to just stuff any theory full of selective biases and be done with it. (I believe we call that "INTJs", FWIW. Bwahahah. )
That seems measurable to me This is exactly what I'm talking about.Basically, the points I offered in my prior reasoning do not necessarily apply to everyone, they are just the tendencies (i.e., on the bell curve, many people fall into that bracket more or less).
You can take the bible and read about the whole sin of lying with woman before marriage. You don't believe it literally, so it has no authority as such. However, you compare it to your own world - one that is much closer to taking it literally. They believe this. You look around and find examples of how it can be supported. You agree with it, and so it becomes true for you.
You read that existance was created in 6/7 days, 6000 years ago. At some point, you realise that doesn't reflect reality, so you throw it away.
Take both of those examples and go back a thousand years. Has the truth of creation changed? Only the data has. What was coherent is no longer coherent. This is good - adapting is critical. However, the point is that the "truth" as "coherent" isn't a good measuring stick. I would think that not knowing is better than knowing something false.
(This gets into a whole lot of epistimology and how can we act with imperfect knowledge, blah blah... so consider it an example of how a "made up story" changed from literal to figurative rather than literal to lie.)
(On the N/S divide; how I see the real seperation between them)
The flaw in the lack of projection (S) is that I do not project these measurements to the individuals. Ne is like factor analysis - I can say that getting married early is one of the most correlated factors to divorce. I do not mean and I do not say that individuals will get divorced when young - that's an N leap. I will say that no matter what they say, statistics says that group will have more divorces. Not one in particular. But what value does that give us? Nothing. Data isn't valuable on it's own - it's the next step, the implications of the data that really matters.
That's what N is good at. Ns and Ss both meet at the same "decision making" point. The N needs to reach across and pull the data to make the decision - one made without data is totally without grounding and will never reflect reality. The S needs to reach across and see what the data means - data without significance is totally without application.
The circle I try to follow is simple - problem -> define problem (N) -> Define needed data (N-S) -> Find data (S) -> evaluate data (N-S) -> Apply data to problem (N). Cutting out any one of those steps is errant.
Using the SBM again;
SBM or SAM -> Marriage rates, biological ramifications -> Statistics -> Sufficient -> SBM (my conclusion)
But, just as an example, N as data gathering means that one only looks around their own world - sees the patterns they want to see. It's not rigid enough to gather data objectively, parse through it and see what it really means. But the S as the applying of data to a problem is a joke too - closed minded, etc.
In the same way, most literalists are Ss. Without a proper definition of a problem, there can be no "solution". No change.
Preferences are just that. Once both are put into context then you can draw upon others (or if you can manage, yourself) to fill in the gaps. Using the right method for the current step is what matters. It doesn't matter if it's an N using N for the wrong task or an S using S for the wrong task... they mirror each other this way.