User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 38

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    So, you think technology wouldn't have been significantly inhibited by their absence? Why?
    If there are no NTs why would we need technology? Who cares?

    If you can answer the second question, you've found the NT replacements (when it comes to technology). If not, who cares?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  2. #22
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    If there are no NTs why would we need technology? Who cares?

    If you can answer the second question, you've found the NT replacements (when it comes to technology). If not, who cares?
    Well, I'd assume that ESTJ, ISTP, INFJ, and ENFP would all care the most, being in the group I like to call "Quasi-Rationals." I call them this because they form the most similar group to NT's, excluding NT's themselves. In fact, I did this for the other temperaments as well:

    Quasi-Rationals: INFJ, ENFP, ESTJ, ISTP.

    Quasi-Idealists: INTJ, ENTP, ESFJ, ISFP.

    Quasi-Guardians: INTJ, ENTJ, INFJ, ENFJ.

    Quasi-Artisans: INTP, ENTP, ENFP, INFP.

    Interestingly, you can quickly see from this that IS_J's and ES_P's are the most strongly concentrated versions of their respective temperaments, as they don't show up at all. Upon further inspection, you notice that INTP, INFP, ENFJ, and ENTJ only show up once, while dominant N types show up at least twice. All other S's also show up once. This shows that stronger N's typically tend to spread their interests across a greater spectrum, and have tendencies in multiple directions, while most S's tend to be more predictable and focused in their interests, and probably make better specialists in any given field. But more importantly, it shows that IN_P's and EN_J's are the most concentrated versions of their respective temperaments, because the N element is submitted to T or F, making the "filtered" element of N that creates the division in temperaments more pronounced.


    But I digress. What I meant was that I have doubts that the solutions that would be created would be as well-designed in general as the ones NT's would create, or that it might take considerably longer to come up with good solutions to various complex problems. I think it isn't that people wouldn't care about such things, they just wouldn't know enough, or be insightful enough to do anything about it.

  3. #23
    Scream down the boulevard LadyJaye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sx
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Soup?

    You get berries! Berries and Nuts!

    Seriously, I don't think it would make a difference if there were no NTs, or no people in general. Stuff just happens.

    Berry and nut soup?!

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FMWarner View Post
    I say this as an NT myself, but I think the best result of a world without NTs would be the end of technological progress as a virtue unto itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    Really? I don't think that would be a good thing... but then I'm a bit of a computer nerd, so I might be biased.
    Well, I have definite Luddite tendencies, so I'm biased too. To me, the main result of technology is the expectation of greater production. We say that technology saves time and increases efficiency, but in real world terms it just makes the hamster wheel go faster. At the risk of being too broad, I think technology generally inhibits quality of life.

    He says as he types on a computer.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    I think it isn't that people wouldn't care about such things, they just wouldn't know enough, or be insightful enough to do anything about it.
    I think it is the opposite. If people care, they will develop the skills, knowledge, and insight.

    (Also, I'd be interested in discussing quasi-whatevers in PMs or another thread.)

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  6. #26
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FMWarner View Post
    Well, I have definite Luddite tendencies, so I'm biased too. To me, the main result of technology is the expectation of greater production. We say that technology saves time and increases efficiency, but in real world terms it just makes the hamster wheel go faster. At the risk of being too broad, I think technology generally inhibits quality of life.

    He says as he types on a computer.
    Well, that's a difference between us, then. I believe that short-term things like quality of life are unimportant next to the importance of ultimately understanding and improving ideas. To me, things just seem stagnate and meaningless when they aren't improving in some way, unless they are already as perfect as they can be, in which case they should simply be maintained as they are without being allowed to regress. Increasing technology and understanding is what brings people to a higher level, ultimately, and brings out the best and worst in them so we can confront them, and decide/realize what is best. It reveals more about us, it is the way we come to understand ourselves and our nature indirectly. Does that make sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I think it is the opposite. If people care, they will develop the skills, knowledge, and insight.
    But don't other types have a lower potential/ability (or at least motivation) to develop/use said skills/insight? Even if they could, wouldn't they be slower/less able in those areas, never quite able to bring things up to where they could be, or at least taking significantly longer to do so, perhaps even when the insight was really needed at a particular time, and all the conclusions/understanding would come too late to do any good against whatever the problem happened to be? I think a lot of important opportunities and advances would be missed or deferred, and that would be a negative situation, in my opinion.

  7. #27
    Senior Member aeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Inasmuch as types express preferences and not absolutes, I do not think things would be much different. The human animal learns and adapts to have needs met, and would do so in such a situation.

    One cannot measure potential, ability, or drive from type. To attempt to do so, or attempt to assign specific aspects of the human experience to a given type to the exclusion of other types is a misuse of the theory as originally expressed, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of its concept.


    cheers,
    Ian

  8. #28
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aeon View Post
    Inasmuch as types express preferences and not absolutes, I do not think things would be much different. The human animal learns and adapts to have needs met, and would do so in such a situation.

    One cannot measure potential, ability, or drive from type. To attempt to do so, or attempt to assign specific aspects of the human experience to a given type to the exclusion of other types is a misuse of the theory as originally expressed, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of its concept.


    cheers,
    Ian
    There is a difference between ability and action. Often times a problem can seem to have multiple possible solutions, but the NT is the type that is most likely to seek new technology as a solution. For example in order to treat depression an NF might become a counselor or train others to be counselors, so that the depressed person can do something to overcome depression. An NT on the other hand might develop a drug to cure depression. They are two different approaches to the same problem.

    Likewise if a society is looking for ways to cope with a potential food shortage there are many possible solutions: ration food, hunt wild animals, invade a neighboring territory, etc.... The NT's are the ones most likely to look at developing new technology as a possible solution to a given problem. It's not lack of ability that keeps other types from developing new technology but lack of desire. A world that never had NT's would be a very different place I believe. (Just like a world without NF's, SP's or SJ's would also be a very different place.)
    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

  9. #29
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aeon View Post
    Inasmuch as types express preferences and not absolutes, I do not think things would be much different. The human animal learns and adapts to have needs met, and would do so in such a situation.
    Yes, but what I described isn't technically a need, it's a want. We could probably survive without further advances. It would just be a little stagnate.
    One cannot measure potential, ability, or drive from type. To attempt to do so, or attempt to assign specific aspects of the human experience to a given type to the exclusion of other types is a misuse of the theory as originally expressed, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of its concept.
    I believe you're inferring too much. I only said that in general things would not progress as quickly, because there would be a smaller group of people interested in advocating things related to what we've described as "N" and "T," such as technology and understanding. I didn't say at any time that that no advancement would occur, I only questioned the speed and effectiveness of such advancements being reduced compared to their current levels. I believe that they would be reduced somewhat compared to their current levels. Explain why you believe they would not. I don't believe there is any reason for me to agree with what you've said.

    Furthermore, I believe my implication that other types would be able to determine the same things eventually, but might have to work harder at it nullifies your argument that I'm measuring/limiting potential. I'm only describing what is likely given the expressed preferences of the individuals in question, if we assume that the MBTI is a valid model for assessing said preferences. That is one of the assumptions I made. Based on those assumptions, that was a reasonable conclusion. I believe it was a reasonable assumption.

    If you do not believe that a person's drive to do or avoid a particular thing is determined by their type to any degree, then of what use is it in determining their motivations? Because it is used and found useful in that regard, assessed type must therefore, at least to some degree, be a valid indication of what it is intended to assess.

    And what do you mean "human experience"? I was merely discussing a theoretical situation regarding technology and the impact of its advancement or lack thereof, and you are now accusing me of assigning purely human traits to a type, and denying them to other types? I did not do so, in fact I explicitly stated that other types could do the same sorts of things if they wished. I only said that because they didn't prefer such things, there would be a lower general drive, throughout society, towards such ends.

    I would also add that a thing can often be used effectively in ways that do not accord with its original concept/expression. If we limited ourselves to understanding something only as it was originally expressed, without interpreting or adding to what was considered "the concept," many useful advances would never have been made. I would in fact consider using a system in a way it was not originally intended to be used as an example of creativity, not simple misuse. We may even formulate incredible new concepts by using the same system in new ways. Don't you realize that?

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    Well, that's a difference between us, then. I believe that short-term things like quality of life are unimportant next to the importance of ultimately understanding and improving ideas. To me, things just seem stagnate and meaningless when they aren't improving in some way, unless they are already as perfect as they can be, in which case they should simply be maintained as they are without being allowed to regress. Increasing technology and understanding is what brings people to a higher level, ultimately, and brings out the best and worst in them so we can confront them, and decide/realize what is best. It reveals more about us, it is the way we come to understand ourselves and our nature indirectly. Does that make sense?
    I understand your point, but I disagree. I know I should probably turn in my INTJ membership card, but I do not think that humanity reaching a higher level has anything to do with technology or progress as it is typically defined. I can certainly appreciate some of the wonders of science, as I enjoy astronomy quite a bit. But I think our interactions with each other are how we come to understand what is best and worst in us. I think the highest accomplishment a person can attain is unselfish love and compassion for his fellow man, and you don't need a computer, PDA or cloned sheep to do that. Are any sterling examples of humanity in the past any less so because they didn't live in the age of the fax machine or the rape of embryos for stem cell research?

    Finally, quality of life is the goal of any person, I would think. To sacrifice your life for another is noble, but who would sacrifice the quality of their life for a smaller cell phone or a pill to fool people into thinking they're happy? Quality of life is short-term in the perspective of history, but for actual living people, it's a lifetime.

Similar Threads

  1. Stephen Frys Beautiful words on a world without God
    By TickTock in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 06-20-2010, 05:19 PM
  2. A world without water
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-24-2010, 07:21 PM
  3. A world without INTPs
    By Salomé in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 11-24-2008, 05:46 PM
  4. A world without ENFPs
    By Nillerz in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 11-24-2008, 02:29 PM
  5. World without Cars!
    By Little Linguist in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 03:40 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