[INTJ] INTJs; Inferior Se; And Horrible Taste in Automobiles...

[InvisibleJim]

Well, even if you don't believe in global warming... are you not afraid of what will happen if we start running out of oil?

Or do you believe that we'll be able to replace oil quickly enough that we can go on without it?

Not at all. Let me make a chart of how cost curves work and I'll get back to you and explain this in more depth.

 

[highlander]

Clearly livestock is a more important issue than cars. There are alternatives.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110107083737.htm

 

[InvisibleJim]

Well, even if you don't believe in global warming... are you not afraid of what will happen if we start running out of oil?

Or do you believe that we'll be able to replace oil quickly enough that we can go on without it?

Okay here you go: cost curves

Oil is a non-renewable resource; which is cheaper than the available alternatives. For alternatives see 'hydrogen cars/electric powered etc.'

For the first X% it remains cheaper per energy unit/convenience to utilize. At a certain point an alternative shows a more effective/economic method of achieving the same result.

Then you hop to using that resource.

For a great example of this analyse the dash for gas in the 70s in the UK. Plenty of dirty coal around, or cheaper offshore gas - gas please!

What have you got now? 'Lets build nuclear power stations! Gas is expensive.'

For your information there is supposed to be some ludicrous amounts of coal available in the UK, it's just not economic to mine it compared to Australia or Chile.

 

[Athenian200]

Okay here you go: cost curves

Oil is a non-renewable resource; which is cheaper than the available alternatives. For alternatives see 'hydrogen cars/electric powered etc.'

For the first X% it remains cheaper per energy unit/convenience to utilize. At a certain point an alternative shows a more effective/economic method of achieving the same result.

Then you hop to using that resource.

For a great example of this analyse the dash for gas in the 70s in the UK. Plenty of dirty coal around, or cheaper offshore gas - gas please!

What have you got now? 'Lets build nuclear power stations! Gas is expensive.'

For your information there is supposed to be some ludicrous amounts of coal available in the UK, it's just not economic to mine it compared to Australia or Chile.

So, theoretically, we can create reasonably priced alternatives to oil for power generation and even automobiles, even though they're a bit more expensive. That's good to know, I thought we were still pretty far away from that.

That means the only remaining problem is figuring out how to manufacture things like plastics and tires without using petroleum.

Just one thing I'm curious about, though... when you say "Gas is expensive" in the above example, are you talking about natural gas or fuel for automobiles?

 

[Zarathustra]

*laughs at fact that thread started by ENFP to mock how INTJs' inferior Se leads them to choose flashy sports cars started off strongly with inferior Se flashy-car-loving but inevitably turned into dominant Ni future-thinking about sustainability of cars*

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

[YOUTUBE="rs-jAImScms"][/YOUTUBE]

 

[Athenian200]

*laughs at fact that thread started by ENFP to mock how INTJs' inferior Se leads them to choose flashy sports cars started off strongly with inferior Se flashy-car-loving but inevitably turned into dominant Ni future-thinking about sustainability of cars*

It was an INFJ who pushed it that way, but the INTJs did gladly jump into the discussion with charts and graphs explaining that the problem didn't require social engineering from the top-down, but could be solved by usingl market forces.

It looks like I didn't have much of a point, anyway... I did some more research, and it looks like we've got plenty of alternatives to oil lined up, in all areas. The plastics can be replaced with organic, biodegradable plastics, the cars can be replaced with electric ones, and the power generation can be replaced with several different things.

They're all just waiting for the price of oil to go up so that they'll be needed. So the problem doesn't exist in the way that has been described by some.

 

[uumlau]

It was an INFJ who pushed it that way, but the INTJs did gladly jump into the discussion with charts and graphs explaining that the problem didn't require social engineering from the top-down, but could be solved by usingl market forces.

It looks like I didn't have much of a point, anyway... I did some more research, and it looks like we've got plenty of alternatives to oil lined up, in all areas. The plastics can be replaced with organic, biodegradable plastics, the cars can be replaced with electric ones, and the power generation can be replaced with several different things.

They're all just waiting for the price of oil to go up so that they'll be needed. So the problem doesn't exist in the way that has been described by some.

Waitaminute! Someone actually did research and ended up agreeing?! That's not supposed to happen!! Where are our flame wars?

Quick, someone start another Fe/Fi thread!

 

[Zarathustra]

*laughs at attempt by tertiary Se to bring damn inferior Se back on topic*

 

[Not_Me]

You started off by saying it was irrational to buy nice cars,

You are right. I was absolutely wrong. It's not irrational 100% of the time.

Perhaps you are so concerned with other men that you care about these things you've mentioned; but that doesn't mean all men do.

You are correct. I was absolutely wrong. Not 100% of the men care about status.

It's all quite a shame, cuz I'd genuinely thought you'd turned the corner and decided to take the path of integrity by just admitting that you were wrong, and being done with it (my girlfriend can to attest to this; she's sitting right next to me, and we were both pleasantly surprised by the path we [apparently wrongly] thought you had decided to take).

OK. I just admitted I was 100% wrong on both counts. But this still leaves the important parts of my arguments fully intact.

Zarathustra, how do you feel about a non wealthy housewife spending $20K on a handbag? Do you feel it's a sound, rational decision as long as she enjoy the purchase? Or do you consider other factors before deciding?

 

[Zarathustra]

You are right. I was absolutely wrong. It's not irrational 100% of the time.

You are correct. I was absolutely wrong. Not 100% of the men care about status.

OK. I just admitted I was 100% wrong on both counts.

Zarathustra, how do you feel about a non wealthy housewife spending $20K on a handbag?

I think it would be retarded.

Do you feel it's a sound, rational decision as long as she enjoy the purchase?

No (with exceptions for certain extreme circumstances: she's about to die, owning this bag is her life's dream, etc.).

Or do you consider other factors before deciding?

As I've said many times already, one needs to take into account one's greater goals (your definition), utility function, and circumstances.

Really, the utility function includes the first and the third, so, by taking it into account, she's, by definition, taking the other two into account.

I don't believe in living beyond one's means; I think to do so is, by your definition, irrational; I have been arguing from this position the entire time.

 

[Not_Me]

But the handbag enthusiast is overspending by $19900. The car enthusiast is overspending by $65k. Both are doing it primarily for a feeling rather than utility. Both are making manageable payments. Would both be equally rational then?

 

[Thalassa]

But the handbag enthusiast is overspending by $19900. The car enthusiast is overspending by $65k. Both are doing it primarily for a feeling rather than utility. Both are making manageable payments. Would both be equally rational then?

You are my new hero.

 

[highlander]

I think it would be retarded.



No (with exceptions for certain extreme circumstances: she's about to die, owning this bag is her life's dream, etc.).



As I've said many times already, one needs to take into account one's greater goals (your definition), utility function, and circumstances.

Really, the utility function includes the first and the third, so, by taking it into account, she's, by definition, taking the other two into account.

I don't believe in living beyond one's means; I think to do so is, by your definition, irrational; I have been arguing from this position the entire time.

If she is about to die, you definitely buy ger the bag!! or rent it at least.

I have a solution to the emissions problem.

 

[mmhmm]

I have a solution to the emissions problem.

*snicker*

 

[highlander]

*snicker*

Why the snicker?

 

[highlander]

You are my new hero.

handbags don't last very long though.

 

[Thalassa]

handbags don't last very long though.

And it costs a lot less than the car.

I am not a staunch defender of handbags, I just think Not_me makes an excellent point.

Also what you say isn't necessarily true. A well-cared-for, well-made, designer item can actually be kept for decades and re-sold as vintage fasion.

 

[mmhmm]

And it costs a lot less than the car.

I am not a staunch defender of handbags, I just think Not_me makes an excellent point.

i really love the bottega barcelona cabat. only 500 pieces. too much though.
i'll settle for the regular oversized cabat in ottone.

 

[Zarathustra]

But the handbag enthusiast is overspending by $19900. The car enthusiast is overspending by $65k. Both are doing it primarily for a feeling rather than utility. Both are making manageable payments. Would both be equally rational then?

First of all, learn what "utility" means when it comes to economics/utility functions.

Second, when did I say it was rational for someone to buy a car that is beyond their means?

Third, my definition of a "non-wealthy housewife" does not include one that can afford a $20,000 purse.

Fourth, learn how much "nicer cars" really cost (i.e., mine starts at about $36,900 and goes up to about $59,550).

Fifth, learn how percentages work. What is the price for an average handbag? What is the price for an average car? Divide $20,000 by the first and $XX,XXX by the second, and you'll find that the first is far more expensive on a percentage basis over the average of its kind than the second. Assuming the average car is ~$20,000, the "nicer car" I'm looking at is 2x-3x times that amount. Assuming the average handbag is even $1,000 (which is likely a gross overestimation -- you used a $100 handbag, for your example [which is probably much closer to reality]), the "nicer purse" is 20x that amount. That would be like buying, at minimum, a $400,000 car (with extremely forgiving assumptions -- under your assumption, that would be like buying a $4,000,000 car [of which extremely few, if any, even exist, and which none of us are really considering buying]). I can't believe you even tried to compare the two, let alone even think that this comparison would somehow worthwhile, considering, as I've been saying this whole time, it all comes down to whether the purchasers are being rational (i.e., living within their means [i.e., utility functions]).

Sixth, you didn't even state the income/wealth levels of the hypothetical car buyer. Assuming they are the same as the hypothetical purse buyer (which would be the most rational way to construct this hypothetical [although, by this point, I've learned to not assume that you are very adept with reason]), then my math above would be highly relevant to their utility functions (although, additionally, the % of their income the average person spends on handbags vs. automobiles would also be a worthwhile metric to consider [and would almost certainly point in my favor as well]).

Seventh, how many handbags does the average woman own? I guarantee you it's far higher than the average number of cars a person owns.

I could probably come up with more problems with your construction, but I'm certain that will do.
Are you really this dense? Nice "trap" you just sprung there...

Are you really even an INTJ? (from the reps I've received, most the INTJs here don't seem to think so.)

You are my new hero.

You know, Marm, considering how you mentioned that you often feel you share the same opinions as this guy, that may well have to do with him actually being an NF...

And it costs a lot less than the car.

I am not a staunch defender of handbags, I just think Not_me makes an excellent point.

Honestly Marm, your positioning on this matter has really made me start to wonder whether, when you guys score low on T, it really does mean that you guys just suck at looking at things objectively. Your F-logic seems to work fine when it comes to personal (Fi) or interpersonal (Fe) emotions/ethics, but, when it comes to more T-based, apersonal matters, often times, you guys really seem to be fucking clueless...