Open Mindedness vs. Close Mindedness

[SaltyWench]

We simply have a misunderstanding.

I am referring to those who are addicted to playing psychological games.

I am not referring to those who play formal games on the internet.

I think our misunderstanding arises because both are referred to as game players.

Whereas I am only referring to those who are addicted to playing psychological games,

So you weren't talking about us gamers. I've never heard of a person who plays psychological games being referred to as a "gamer"... though it wouldn't be inaccurate.

Random thought... imagine an MMORPG dedicated to playing psychological mind games with each other. Lol!

 

[FC3S]

So you weren't talking about us gamers. I've never heard of a person who plays psychological games being referred to as a "gamer"... though it wouldn't be inaccurate.

Random thought... imagine an MMORPG dedicated to playing psychological mind games with each other. Lol!

Load up an MMORPG that has a main chat channel, most of them do. As a good safety measure, make sure there are quite a few players on (potential lurkers [tm]), also make sure the main chat channel is busy.

Now, observe the regulars. There will usually be someone with massive SKILLLZZZ, it'll almost always be a male, so he'll be aggressive, he'll probably be pretentious from all the sucking up other players do.

Call him out on his BS when he's clearly in the wrong. Enjoy.

This works wonders in racing games, strangely enough.

 

[Mole]

So you weren't talking about us gamers. I've never heard of a person who plays psychological games being referred to as a "gamer"... though it wouldn't be inaccurate.

Random thought... imagine an MMORPG dedicated to playing psychological mind games with each other. Lol!

I do though sometimes wonder if there is a connection between formal game playing on the internet and psychological game playing.

It's plain that psychological game playing is not a mental illness, however psychological game playing is a psychological defence.

So I wonder whether formal game playing on the internet is also a psychological defence.

It seems to me that both types of gamers have no insight into what they are doing.

So it seems both types are defending against their own psyche.

And of course they have no idea how ridiculous and absurd and pathetic they are, because all they are focused on jusit winning the game.

And it is interesting that this is the way they treat personal relationships - as game to win.

So game players are to be avoided except of course by other game players.

 

[FC3S]

I do though sometimes wonder if there is a connection between formal game playing on the internet and psychological game playing.

It's plain that psychological game playing is not a mental illness, however psychological game playing is a psychological defence.

So I wonder whether formal game playing on the internet is also a psychological defence.

It seems to me that both types of gamers have no insight into what they are doing.

So it seems both types are defending against their own psyche.

And of course they have no idea how ridiculous and absurd and pathetic they are, because all they are focused on it winning the game.

And it is interesting that this is the way they treat personal relationships - as game to win.

So game players are to be avoided except of course by other game players.

Just...

Winning...

The game?...

:horor:

It is not just about... using skillz and going ... in for the kill.

It is to be savored. And it is even better with rivals - equally skilled rivals. You really have to bust out every stop - that takes thinking in realtime - insight, the adaption, the hunt and thrill of battle.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[simulatedworld]

We simply have a misunderstanding.

I am referring to those who are addicted to playing psychological games.

I am not referring to those who play formal games on the internet.

I think our misunderstanding arises because both are referred to as game players.

Whereas I am only referring to those who are addicted to playing psychological games,

Bahaha, isn't it awesome how he took your use of the term "games" totally literally though? "WTF IS WRONG WITH VIDEO GAMES???"

MBTI is theoretical. Only 'theoretically' are you fucking with a certain group of people. If, per chance, MBTI is a complete fallacy....you are only fucking with yourself

sigh. Can't you kids learn your terms before making jokes you don't understand?

It's not a fallacy--by definition, it CAN'T be a fallacy because it doesn't operate within deductive reasoning. MBTI is neither totally reliable nor totally unreliable; it's an inductive scale with varying possible degrees of accuracy. Just like nearly everything else in real life, it doesn't operate in definite or black and white terms. I don't consider it either "all totally 100% right" or "completely and entirely 0% right" because it's obviously neither. It's not a religious dogma, for fuck's sake.

And since it's neither scientific nor measurable, deductive reasoning terms like "fallacy" are totally inapplicable. Saying "MBTI could be a fallacy" is simply meaningless, and it betrays a poor understanding of the word.

Asking for deductive reasoning to prove that I'm an ENTP is like asking for scientific proof that Led Zeppelin was a rock band. "Rock band" and "ENTP" are both arbitrarily made up terms that some people choose to use to describe a given set of characteristics. These characteristics are neither quantifiable nor objectively standardized; there is only a general consensus. You don't have to see any numbers to gain perceptive utility from organizing the data that way.

I'm starting to wonder how anyone could possibly misunderstand this concept so badly, but apparently there are a lot of you.

What if the idea that music should be placed into categories like "rock", "rap" or "R&B" is a total fallacy??? I GUESS MUSIC CRITICS ARE JUST FUCKING WITH THEMSELVES LOL

sigh.

 

[SaltyWench]

Bahaha, isn't it awesome how he took your use of the term "games" totally literally though? "WTF IS WRONG WITH VIDEO GAMES???"




sigh. Can't you kids learn your terms before making jokes you don't understand?

It's not a fallacy--by definition, it CAN'T be a fallacy because it doesn't operate within deductive reasoning. MBTI is neither totally reliable nor totally unreliable; it's an inductive scale with varying possible degrees of accuracy. Just like nearly everything else in real life, it doesn't operate in definite or black and white terms. I don't consider it either "all totally 100% right" or "completely and entirely 0% right" because it's obviously neither. It's not a religious dogma, for fuck's sake.

And since it's neither scientific nor measurable, deductive reasoning terms like "fallacy" are totally inapplicable. Saying "MBTI could be a fallacy" is simply meaningless, and it betrays a poor understanding of the word.

Asking for deductive reasoning to prove that I'm an ENTP is like asking for scientific proof that Led Zeppelin was a rock band. "Rock band" and "ENTP" are both arbitrarily made up terms that some people choose to use to describe a given set of characteristics. These characteristics are neither quantifiable nor objectively standardized; there is only a general consensus. You don't have to see any numbers to gain perceptive utility from organizing the data that way.

I'm starting to wonder how anyone could possibly misunderstand this concept so badly, but apparently there are a lot of you.

What if the idea that music should be placed into categories like "rock", "rap" or "R&B" is a total fallacy??? I GUESS MUSIC CRITICS ARE JUST FUCKING WITH THEMSELVES LOL

sigh.

Fallacy

1. A false notion.
2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
4. The quality of being deceptive.

You continue to prove yourself mentally deficient, by your own words.

 

[simulatedworld]

You continue to prove yourself mentally deficient, by your own words.

Umm...

Were you trying to prove my point, or did that just happen by accident?

My whole point is that MBTI can't be a "false notion" because it's not a notion at all. It's simply a frame of reference, an arbitrary method of organizing data: it can't be right or wrong because it isn't a statement of deductive reasoning.

It's simply, "I choose to arbitrarily place people who act this way into this made up category."

Nevermind, you weren't trying to prove my point, you're just waaaay behind.


EDIT: An explanation is probably necessary here.

We can observe the following simply by watching people:

--People exhibit certain behaviors under certain conditions
--Different people are more prone to certain behaviors under certain conditions than others
--If we watch people, we can make somewhat useful inferences about the way they will probably tend to behave, though we cannot predict exactly what they will do at any given time.

If you can explain some reason this is not true, I'd love to hear it.

From there, it's all arbitrary categorizing and labeling. The very definitions of the types are themselves subjective because MBTI doesn't purport to be scientific. Isn't it obvious from reading the "type analysis" posts on this board? Or don't you actually read any of the posts/make any attempt to grasp the methodology being used?

There's this whole little group of you that runs around parroting the same garbage about judging whether MBTI is "true" or "false" as if it's one singular idea with inherent, measurable truth or falsehood. That's SO missing the point. Please, please read this:

Don't they teach this shit in freshman year of college anymore?

Inductive arguments fundamentally can't be evaluated in terms of absolute truth value, because they don't suggest positive or absolute truths: only probabilities about what may happen next, based on observing past trends.

If you understand the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, you will see why MBTI isn't judged in terms of truth or falsehood. It's neither objective nor quantifiable.

I'm sorry, that's probably too many big words for an ESTP. You should just beat me with a chair to prove how wrong I am.

 

[SaltyWench]

Beating you with a chair is a tempting offer. Explosives would be rather fun as well. But I digress.

Are we actually going to get into a pissing contest over how incorrect something has to be in order to be considered "false"? My point was that the word fallacy has several different shades of meaning. It had not been used incorrectly.

Let's use your example of music, since all musical genres are "arbitrary". I'll say that Miley Cyrus is death metal. Now, let's ask members of some death metal bands if they agree. I guarantee that after they have a good, long horse laugh they'll have a laundry list of reasons why she should not be classified as death metal. Wrong vocals, different instruments, pop beats, teeny bopper lyrical content... etc. Where's the screaming? The blast beats? The drums? The gloomy lyrics? Sure, it's all subjective opinion, but if enough people perceive her music as sounding too different from death metal to be classified within that category, there is a good chance that the notion is false.

Notion

1. A belief or opinion.
2. A mental image or representation; an idea or conception.
3. A fanciful impulse; a whim. Synonym: idea.

Ideas, beliefs or opinions can all be subjective. Therefore, an incorrect belief or idea (notion) would equal a fallacy.

 

[simulatedworld]

You seem to have a particular talent for proving my points for me.

The way you've shown that Miley Cyrus is very probably not death metal is effective inductive reasoning.

But we still haven't proven this in objectively measurable terms--Te terms, if you will. The problem here is one of interpretation. If we reason that MBTI types, like musical genres, cannot be determined objectively, we must conclude that they are subjective.

And why on Earth would we question the factual accuracy of any system that is subjective?

That is silly, like asking for absolute certainty through measurable evidence that Miley Cirus is not death metal. After all, if it's my opinion that she is death metal, you can't objectively prove me wrong with total certainty...

...you can only use induction to show a high probability that I am wrong for calling Miley Cyrus a death metal artist. It's unscientific because there's no clinical test that can be done to establish for certain that death metal sounds a certain way--there's only a general consensus among "informed people" about what death metal sounds like. See how it doesn't operate in terms of absolutely provable right or wrong?

It's just "X% probability of accuracy." That's how real world decision-making works--the problem of perception bias means we rarely have total objective certainty about anything. We use induction all the time without scientific proof, and it's perfectly reasonable.

 

[SaltyWench]

It's just "X% probability of accuracy." That's how real world decision-making works--the problem of perception bias means we rarely have total objective certainty about anything. We use induction all the time without scientific proof, and it's perfectly reasonable.

I just can't help myself. I have to ask. Wouldn't the polling of a large group of people help with the perception bias?

This has actually been a lot of fun, debating this back and forth with you. When I have time, I will read the link you posted earlier too. It looks interesting.

 

[Nocapszy]

Bonus points if it is lengthy and makes me think.

what can i redeem the points for?

 

[FC3S]

what can i redeem the points for?

Respect -1, no bonus points for you - block yo.

 

[avolkiteshvara]

Open mindedness:

Closed mindedness:

 

[mortabunt]

Closed mindedness: Too much J. Will only accept whatever falls into their category of veiw. Ignores or pogroms that which does not fit in.
Open mindedness: The capability to admit that others are right, even if you do not agree.

 

[Blank]

To me open-mindedness has to do with being willing to look over what you've already experienced or what you think you know and be willing to rethink it. An open-minded individual should also be accepting of things that are progressive and fair to everyone.

Being closed-minded in my book is believing 100% that you are right and could never be proven wrong no matter what and doing whatever it takes to keep that belief. It also means being unwilling to take in certain information of any kind.

These are extremes obviously. If a woman's husband died, she's not closed-minded for being in denial.

 

[Son of the Damned]

For me, Open-mindedness is being able to accept new evidence, and being able to reevaluate one's beliefs based on said evidence. So, being able to change your mind, basically.

 

[Nadir]

Economic power breeds open-mindedness. This is true even if it may not seem so to the outside world in some instances.

 

[avolkiteshvara]

Economic power breeds open-mindedness. This is true even if it may not seem so to the outside world in some instances.

Elaborate.

 

[Nadir]

Elaborate.

It's not a direct causation. However, an economically strong person is, generally speaking, able to live a more comfortable and well-to-do life. This allows for two things: To live life with generally less stress (resulting in more leisure time and thus a more leisurely, liberal lifestyle well suited to open-mindedness) than a poorer individual, and to get a superior education that builds on this socioeconomic capability that encourages freethinking and contemplation of multiple differing viewpoints. These serve to make the person more open-minded.

Speaking purely from a materialistic perspective, if an individual has more economic power, wealth at his/her disposal, that person will be quicker and more willing to contemplate or embrace differing ideas or viewpoints simply because that person doesn't require the feeling of safety that existing preconceptions and capabilities provide the closed-minded individual with. A wealthier person has less to lose. This person will therefore be able to take more risks and be more dynamic in contemplating any issue.

 

[avolkiteshvara]

It's not a direct causation. However, an economically strong person is, generally speaking, able to live a more comfortable and well-to-do life. This allows for two things: To live life with generally less stress (resulting in more leisure time and thus a more leisurely, liberal lifestyle well suited to open-mindedness) than a poorer individual, and to get a superior education that builds on this socioeconomic capability that encourages freethinking and contemplation of multiple differing viewpoints. These serve to make the person more open-minded.

Speaking purely from a materialistic perspective, if an individual has more economic power, wealth at his/her disposal, that person will be quicker and more willing to contemplate or embrace differing ideas or viewpoints simply because that person doesn't require the feeling of safety that existing preconceptions and capabilities provide the closed-minded individual with. A wealthier person has less to lose. This person will therefore be able to take more risks and be more dynamic in contemplating any issue.

I generally agree. But explain Saudi Arabia.