User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 33

  1. #21
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Your portrayal of this apparant dichotomy is heavily biased. I could easily reverse your argument and put it this way:

    Tradition and common sense are the only things worth following. These things teach you how to cook meals, tie your shoes, get a job, and all other practical aspects of life. A person who does not have even the most basic life skills will be miserable. It is clear that anyone who follows tradition and common sense will know how to survive in this world and to enjoy what it has to offer.

    On the other hand Ted Kazcynski, the Unabomber, was an extremely logical person. That logic lead him to mail bombs to people through the mail. It's clear that logic is what total lunatics use and we should have no use for it.

    This is the equally biased mirror image of the argument that you are portraying.



    This assumes that logic and concrete, empirical evidence are superior methods of reaching conclusions in all circumstances. These are totally arbitrary assumptions. For example anecdotal evidence is rejected in a scientific context, but it is placed in the highest regard in the context of a courtroom (i.e. the testimony of the witnesses). You seem to be saying that anecdotal evidence, for example, should always be rejected in favor of logic and empirical evidence in every situation.

    Or are you saying that these methods are superior because one can verify them independently. Are you suggesting that it is better to destroy ourselves individually than to save ourselves as a cohesive society?



    Again you are making the assumptions that logic and independence are superior. You seem to be saying "logic is superior because it uses logic". Your assumptions are totally arbitrary. If you want to convince me that logic is superior to tradition, then you need to only use assumptions that everyone would readily accept. That includes the people that you would consider to hold to superstitious traditions.

    What you have said so far seems to be an extremely wordy version of saying, "I'm right because I said so". Can you show me that the traditionalist view is inferior based on their standards rather than yours? If not then your distinction of what is a superior method is arbitrary.

    Show you that a traditionalist way is inferior to my rationalist method?

    Look at countries like Nepal, or some other village that is in the stone age. Wouldnt you think that this is a product of SJ-maintain status quo by all means necessary mentality?

    It is new ideas that elevate our sense of inner being isnt it? Isnt this what makes us superior to beasts, our inner life? And isnt the greatest privilege of having inner life is being able to come up with ideas? Traditionalist method tends to deprive you of this.

    Even SJs will be compelled to agree that coming up with ideas is perhaps the noblest feature of being human and envy Intuitors for their vast superiority in that enterprise.

    In this article, Tim Flynn, I believe was the author, http://testdex.com/Global5-SLOAN_Manual.pdf

    We have an exegesis of the Big 5 Model, where we identify inquisitive with N and Sensing with non-curious. The inquisitives have reviled the non-curious for their superficiality and coarseness, yet the non-curious expressed profound admiration for how innovative and adaptable the inquisitives were.

    Look through that file, it should be around page 8 or so..
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #22
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    I agree that BlueWing is a bit biased. He is Ti dominant, after all...

    But I can actually envision a scenario that meets your criteria. Suppose a tribe of people accepts the value of human sacrifice based on tradition. Now suppose there was a famine, and many died, enough so that continuing that tradition would result in the extinction of the tribe. Logic would tell you to discontinue the practice, but tradition would choose to continue it. They continue it, and they become extinct. Most traditions say that one should value the continuity of the people, the carrying on of their way of life. In this case, tradition proved inferior to logic by it's own standards.
    Well an example is not a proof, but it does provide an interesting starting point for a discussion. If we look at your example we should also consider that part of the traditionalist view is that the older a tradition is, the more important it is to be held. So considering the tradition in your example it wouldn't be one that could be held for too long. As soon as a famine hits it will cause extinction.

    This argument actually supports the traditionalist view. If a tradition is extremely old then it must be one that preserves life rather than ending it. The older a tradition is, the more it preserves life. Therefore it is extremely important to hold to old traditions.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  3. #23
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post

    This argument actually supports the traditionalist view. If a tradition is extremely old then it must be one that preserves life rather than ending it. The older a tradition is, the more it preserves life. Therefore it is extremely important to hold to old traditions.
    If a tradition is old, it means that with the circumstances that the community is facing, the tradition has worked. It does not mean that it is the best possible way to preserve life. Consider the Aztecs. This wretched tribe has managed to survive for hundreds of years practicing mutilation of bodies every night as a religious ritual and likely would have survived to this day had it not been for the Spaniards taking them over.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #24
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    (btw, I have no time to Bluewing's attack of tradition, it's just the old contructivist rationality that Hayek wrote so well on, and the same misguided notions.)
    What misguided notions could those be? I am not saying all tradition is evil, only that we should stop worshipping it.

    Other than that, your post was one of the few that I could yield assent to in its entirety.

    P.S

    I have never read Hayek.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  5. #25
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    This argument actually supports the traditionalist view. If a tradition is extremely old then it must be one that preserves life rather than ending it. The older a tradition is, the more it preserves life. Therefore it is extremely important to hold to old traditions.
    What if I say more generally that the goal of tradition is to preserve life? And then we compare the success rate of those who embrace logic with the goal of preserving life, and those who embrace tradition with the same goal? Face it, even the ESFJ admitted that logic is not arbitrary.

  6. #26
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    What if I say more generally that the goal of tradition is to preserve life? And then we compare the success rate of those who embrace logic with the goal of preserving life, and those who embrace tradition with the same goal? Face it, even the ESFJ admitted that logic is not arbitrary.

    The purpose of traditionalists is to maintain security, preserving life is much too abstract for them.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #27
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    The purpose of traditionalists is to maintain security, preserving life is much too abstract for them.
    Based on what grounds? I don't believe the notion is too abstract for them, albeit their lesser awareness of abstraction may obscure it from them temporarily. They may prefer tradition, but I believe that they would move away from it if it became painful/harmful. People are known to avoid pain and seek pleasure.

  8. #28
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    Based on what grounds? I don't believe the notion is too abstract for them, albeit their lack of awareness of abstraction may obscure it from them. They may prefer tradition, but I believe that they would move away from it if it became painful. People are known to avoid pain and seek pleasure.
    They prefer security because they know that what they are already comfortable with can't be painful, unless of course circumstances change in the future--when they do disaster is imminent and inevitable because they can't improvise. The more security conscious you are, the more difficult it is for you to adjust.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #29
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    Logic is arbitrary?

    I believe you are projecting.
    If you believe that I am projecting then you lack elementary observational skills. :rolli:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluewing
    Show you that a traditionalist way is inferior to my rationalist method?

    Look at countries like Nepal, or some other village that is in the stone age. Wouldnt you think that this is a product of SJ-maintain status quo by all means necessary mentality?
    This is an ethnocentric argument. They could easily look at our culture and judge it as inferior by their standards. After all they never created nuclear weapons which not only can destroy our society, but all societies on the planet. Also they have a tight extended family unit compared to our culture which struggles to even keep the nuclear family together. Ethnocentric arguments are easy to make, but they only make sense to those that assume their culture is innately superior.

    It is new ideas that elevate our sense of inner being isnt it? Isnt this what makes us superior to beasts, our inner life? And isnt the greatest privilege of having inner life is being able to come up with ideas? Traditionalist method tends to deprive you of this.
    Yes you are appealing to my ENTP vanity. But perhaps my natural way of thinking is more destructive than productive. By what objective means do I have to say that the ENTP way is always the best way in every circumstance?

    Even SJs will be compelled to agree that coming up with ideas is perhaps the noblest feature of being human and envy Intuitors for their vast superiority in that enterprise.

    In this article, Tim Flynn, I believe was the author, http://testdex.com/Global5-SLOAN_Manual.pdf

    We have an exegesis of the Big 5 Model, where we identify inquisitive with N and Sensing with non-curious. The inquisitives have reviled the non-curious for their superficiality and coarseness, yet the non-curious expressed profound admiration for how innovative and adaptable the inquisitives were.

    Look through that file, it should be around page 8 or so..
    The ability to generate ideas is useful, but I doubt the common SJ response would be that it is the noblest feature of being human. They may admire the innovation in some contexts, but may not appreciate it when it comes to things like religion or marriage.

    The issue I have is the underlying assumption that logic is the superior process for reaching conclusions in every circumstance. I agree that logic is most useful when applied to pure mathematics. Why does that make it superior in any other respect?
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  10. #30
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    This is an ethnocentric argument. They could easily look at our culture and judge it as inferior by their standards. After all they never created nuclear weapons which not only can destroy our society, but all societies on the planet. Also they have a tight extended family unit compared to our culture which struggles to even keep the nuclear family together. Ethnocentric arguments are easy to make, but they only make sense to those that assume their culture is innately superior.
    They'd be forced to concede that the Intuitors are more efficient human beings--utilized their talents better, but not any better at heart. A fiend can have a manifold of skills that will make him more efficient than a sage. Take Hitler for instance, he was a gifted orator, highly imaginative and industrious yet a man with a wicked heart. Hence, he just like the western nations who nearly destroyed this world has allowed for his 'efficiency' to evince how nefarious he was as a person.



    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Yes you are appealing to my ENTP vanity. But perhaps my natural way of thinking is more destructive than productive. By what objective means do I have to say that the ENTP way is always the best way in every circumstance?.
    INTPs are most efficient at generating profound insight on impersonal grounds. INFPs on personal. INTJs are the champions in the realm of impersonal innovation. INFJs in personal. ENTPs and ENFPs are only best at generating practical ideas.


    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    The ability to generate ideas is useful, but I doubt the common SJ response would be that it is the noblest feature of being human. They may admire the innovation in some contexts, but may not appreciate it when it comes to things like religion or marriage.?.
    I bet SJs would definitely wish they had more N so they could finally have the control over their lives that they always longed for as opposed to be at the mercy of external circumstances that force them to turtle in their traditional ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    The issue I have is the underlying assumption that logic is the superior process for reaching conclusions in every circumstance. I agree that logic is most useful when applied to pure mathematics. Why does that make it superior in any other respect?
    Logic is best for all impersonal endeavors. Though 'Feeling' for the personal. The most meritorious philosophers and scientists tended to be INTPs and most meritorious poets, novelists and playwrights INFPs. Either way, Ns top it.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-22-2016, 08:50 PM
  2. Intuitives: Do you hate searching for things in your outer surroundings?
    By The Great One in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06-26-2012, 08:48 PM
  3. The Search for Better, More Elemental Definitions of the Functions, Esp. Judging
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-10-2011, 02:44 PM
  4. [sx] sx/sp types, let me save you a lot of trouble in the search for a mate
    By themarlins in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 11:08 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