User Tag List

View Poll Results: Who's more close-minded: INTJs or ENTJs?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • ENTJs?

    17 56.67%
  • INTJs?

    13 43.33%
First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 89

  1. #31
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Now you know why some people have a big problem with always referring to things in terms of type.
    It is possible to investigate an issue and its relationship with types only to determine that there is no apparent correlation.

    If they are unwilling to even entertain possibilities then, as you said, it's their problem.
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

  2. #32
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    It is possible to investigate an issue and its relationship with types only to determine that there is no apparent correlation.

    If they are unwilling to even entertain possibilities then, as you said, it's their problem.
    That would be true if MBTI types could be proven empirically. Since it's not, you now have to compare them to other constructs of human categorization, such as racial classifications.

  3. #33
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    Even so, you could argue that any dialogue about type/characteristics is a step further in discovering the legitimacy of the system.

    It would be ridiculous to focus only on the perceived positive aspects of types.
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

  4. #34
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Scapegoating involves coming up with a group of negative characteristics, either true or false, to justify the harsh action taken against the targeted group. In the case of Nazi Germany, Jewish people were characterized as shifty, disloyal, arrogant, covetous, and avaricious, amongst other unpleasant terms, and that these traits needed to be expunged from the Volk.

    Were there Jewish people who exhibited those characteristics? Of course, there are people like that of every background. However, there were just as many who never displayed those traits, and instead were giving, selfless individuals who worked tirelessly to make the world around them a better place. However, when a worldwide depression's going on, and someone's looking for another person to blame, they're not necessarily going to stop for the sake of those people. That's why scapegoating is the way it is.



    Of course not, it's the only way we have time to make many snap judgments that are necessary to survival. But it is inherently dangerous, and when it goes wrong, the effects have been catastrophic.



    However, we simply don't have enough time to get to know everyone well enough to constantly put aside these biases. Is the person who says "I'm not racist, one of my best friends is black... but he's one of the good ones" truly not racist?



    I understand what you're saying, and yes, I grow frustrated with the social issues that go along with categorization. However, they're there for a reason, which is that when times are bad, simple generalization turns into scapegoating. When talking about people, we may be able to discuss it dispassionately, but that doesn't mean that the emotional response to the subject is dispassionate at all. Humans aren't rational beings, but emotional ones... and that's where the danger in categorization comes from.
    Long post, with a lot of good stuff within, I'm at work and the missus will be waking soon, so my apologies for the hurried reply.

    Question: If making social generalizations is potentially catastrophically dangerous, as history has shown us it has been, what would you propose we should do to change this fact/pattern?

    I'll make a generalization!



    Most people are stupid, in that they don't think for themselves, they don't utilize critical thinking, and this, m'dear, leads to the varied and continuous maladies/tragedies that befall us human beings, past, present and surely in the future to come, sadly.

    Now, if you accept the above generalization, there are three types of folks who will "sway" either implicitly or explicitly the masses, one type being the selfish, power hungry, sociopaths, who believe human beings are pawns, they gain, you lose, me, me, me, me, me types.

    And then there will be your altruists, who see humanity as a whole, who think when the individual suffers the community suffers, when the community is healthy the individual will be healthy.

    And then there's your third type, the reclusive intellectual, they might be writers, poets, painters, scientists, but they create works of art and, or workable systems/theories that eventually benefit mankind tremendously.

    ^There's more, I'm sure, but those are the three that come to mind.


    "I'm not racist, one of my best friends is black... but he's one of the good ones"
    ^ Um, that is not only racist but retarded, why?

    Because he's implying that black people are inherently bad, that is the stupidest generalization I've ever heard regarding a race, televangelists are bad, that not only makes sense, but it's true.

    Televangelists exploit people who are suffering and who are poor as fuck yet gladly and greedily take their "offerings"

    Race is such a touchy issue.

    Which sucks, I wish we could be more mature about it, why can we classify, delineate and describe other animals yet, due to our fragile egos, we, even the fucking science community refuse to classify and regard human beings like the rest of the animals they study.

    It's not wrong for me to say that East Asians tend to be shorter than average, but if I say they tend to score better on IQ tests and excel in math and sciences, I'm a racist asshole.



    People are people, and in my world, a lot of people of all types and races are pretty much the same, as in they're average.

    Exceptional people come in ALL RACES, but they are few and far between.

    But why get so butt-hurt when we make observations regarding people of different races?

    Fuck, we even get butt-hurt when we make generalizations about men and women.



    THEY ARE JUST GENERALIZATIONS!!!

    You're the asshole if your generalizations are blindly accepted rather than fortified via personal experience, research, and observation.

    And...

    You're the asshole if you jump to conclusions about someone without KNOWING THEM simply because of their race.

    As I said before, the individual always takes precedence and trumps any generalizations, positive or negative.



    Why can we discuss different dog breeds, and their characteristics yet for some reason we now have to accept, because it's so PC, that all people are the same, I am pro-individualism, all people are human beings, but not all human beings are the same, similar, yes, but we are all far from being the same.

    We, each of us, even monozygotic twins, are individuals.

    /end rant

    :P
    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  5. #35
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    Even so, you could argue that any dialogue about type/characteristics is a step further in discovering the legitimacy of the system.

    It would be ridiculous to focus only on the perceived positive aspects of types.
    It never ends up that way, unfortunately - it always ends up as a fight of some sort. We're inevitably emotionally invested in our identities.

  6. #36
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    Even so, you could argue that any dialogue about type/characteristics is a step further in discovering the legitimacy of the system.

    It would be ridiculous to focus only on the perceived positive aspects of types.
    You're on a roll, today, me likey, me agree.

    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  7. #37
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    Long post, with a lot of good stuff within, I'm at work and the missus will be waking soon, so my apologies for the hurried reply.

    Question: If making social generalizations is potentially catastrophically dangerous, as history has shown us it has been, what would you propose we should do to change this fact/pattern?

    I'll make a generalization!

    Stay away from negative generalizations as a cultural norm... which is pretty much what we've been doing since the '60s.
    Most people are stupid, in that they don't think for themselves, they don't utilize critical thinking, and this, m'dear, leads to the varied and continuous maladies/tragedies that befall us human beings, past, present and surely in the future to come, sadly.

    Now, if you accept the above generalization, there are three types of folks who will "sway" either implicitly or explicitly the masses, one type being the selfish, power hungry, sociopaths, who believe human beings are pawns, they gain, you lose, me, me, me, me, me types.

    And then there will be your altruists, who see humanity as a whole, who think when the individual suffers the community suffers, when the community is healthy the individual will be healthy.

    And then there's your third type, the reclusive intellectual, they might be writers, poets, painters, scientists, but they create works of art and, or workable systems/theories that eventually benefit mankind tremendously.

    ^There's more, I'm sure, but those are the three that come to mind.
    Sorry, but I don't quite see what you're getting at here

    ^ Um, that is not only racist but retarded, why?

    Because he's implying that black people are inherently bad, that is the stupidest generalization I've ever heard regarding a race, televangelists are bad, that not only makes sense, but it's true.

    Televangelists exploit people who are suffering and who are poor as fuck yet gladly and greedily take their "offerings"
    Is that every televangelist? Or what about something similar: Mister Rogers utilized television in much the same way, and for much the same stated purposes (spreading Christ's love to children) as "televangelists"... yet I don't think anyone would think of calling him "bad" for doing it.

    Perhaps it's the behavior that's bad, and not the person?

    Race is such a touchy issue.

    Which sucks, I wish we could be more mature about it, why can we classify, delineate and describe other animals yet, due to our fragile egos, we, even the fucking science community refuse to classify and regard human beings like the rest of the animals they study.
    Let's take a look at another time people were treated as animals to learn about race distinctions:



    Tuskegee experiment, where scientists studied the long-term effects of untreated syphilis upon black men... even though penicillin had been invented and made widely available shortly after the start of the experiment. Hundreds of men unnecessarily dead or driven insane.

    These things aren't dispassionate, and they are not without serious consequence.

    It's not wrong for me to say that East Asians tend to be shorter than average, but if I say they tend to score better on IQ tests and excel in math and sciences, I'm a racist asshole.

    Height is something you measure on a ruler, and can't be changed. It generally has no qualitative bearing on life, unless you want to play professional basketball.

    Intelligence has heavy qualitative implications. There is a distinct bias toward smarter people as "better" than people of average or lower intelligence. We see this all the time on this board, with the "N bias" that people go on about all the time. Intuitors are supposedly "smarter" than sensors, and as a result, people want to self-identify with the "better" group. Never mind that there's nothing in the literature that even suggests that to be the case.

    People are people, and in my world, a lot of people of all types and races are pretty much the same, as in they're average.

    Exceptional people come in ALL RACES, but they are few and far between.

    But why get so butt-hurt when we make observations regarding people of different races?
    It's because our racial groups have become accultured to be distrustful of one another, and furthermore, it's pretty reasonable, given the history.

    Fuck, we even get butt-hurt when we make generalizations about men and women.



    THEY ARE JUST GENERALIZATIONS!!!
    Generalizations also lead to behavior. In your example of the submissive woman, what happens if a guy thinks he's justified in slapping his partner around, because "women like that sort of thing, deep down on the inside?" It took years and a huge cultural shift to disabuse ourselves of that notion.

    You're the asshole if your generalizations are blindly accepted rather than fortified via personal experience, research, and observation.
    And...

    You're the asshole if you jump to conclusions about someone without KNOWING THEM simply because of their race.
    Humans sadly have a tendency toward confirmation bias.

    As I said before, the individual always takes precedence and trumps any generalizations, positive or negative.



    Why can we discuss different dog breeds, and their characteristics yet for some reason we now have to accept, because it's so PC, that all people are the same, I am pro-individualism, all people are human beings, but not all human beings are the same, similar, yes, but we are all far from being the same.

    We, each of us, even monozygotic twins, are individuals.

    /end rant

    :P
    What happens when a dog doesn't display the "proper" qualities of a breed, or a breed, like say, pit bulls, are associated with violent and negative characteristics?

    There's a reason black culture identifies with pit bulls. We treat pit bulls now just like we did black people not too long ago.

  8. #38
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    My pitbull is so sweet, she's a gentle giant.

    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  9. #39
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    My pitbull is so sweet, she's a gentle giant.

    They're great dogs when properly socialized. Just like any dog breed.

    And yet, we still have laws against owning them in some localities. People get very uncomfortable when a family with a pit bull moves in next door. It's all about "protecting the children". If a labrador nips a little too hard when playing, it receives a stern rebuke and the offended party usually accepts a sincere apology. When a pit bull does the same, the offended party often demands that the dog be put down as "a danger to society".

    Such parallels to the Jim Crow era, that it's absolutely fascinating.

  10. #40
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Ahhh, I hate the fact that I'm working right now, quick fact, labs have soft bites, literally, I was watching this special on different dog breeds and labs have something called a soft bite.

    We adopted my pit bull, she has problems, she was obviously mistreated at some point in her early life, we adopted her when she was two.

    But, yeah, people are soooooo fucking scared of her, hahahhahaha, little do they know she's the most affectionate, passive dog ever, she would never attack a person, ever.

    She doesn't get along with female dogs though, so we are cautious about that.

    But still, I do get what you are saying, but this is when we take a generalization too far, when we make assumptions and assertions prior to meeting and knowing an individual.

    The masses, i.e. most people, what can I say, they're fearful, and they want to blindly believe in things to feel safe, special and secure, that's human nature for you.

    That's what's sad.

    Regarding your aforementioned intelligence = good, well, I agree with that belief.

    Now, I do not agree that intelligence necessarily leads to good acts, nope, quite the opposite is often true.

    Intelligence that is not tempered by morals is perhaps the scariest thing there is.

    A dumb psycho can't do too much harm, an intelligent one can.

    Also, this is my own value system, but wisdom, integrity and kindness trump pure intellect in my books.

    Oh, and self-awareness, and empathy.

    So many virtues other than intelligence.

    And then there are aesthetic virtues, as in, people who create beautiful works of art, wow!!!!
    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] Who's more close-minded: NTJs or NTPS?
    By Zarathustra in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: 10-26-2014, 01:53 AM
  2. [NT] Hitler...intj or entj?
    By BlackOp in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 299
    Last Post: 05-03-2012, 11:21 PM
  3. Who's more close-minded: me or you?
    By VagrantFarce in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-01-2010, 08:55 PM
  4. [NT] Who's more close-minded: INTPs or ENTPs?
    By Zarathustra in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-01-2010, 01:58 PM
  5. Who're more manipulative? Gay Squirrels or Jewish Monkeys
    By Nonsensical in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 02:35 AM

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