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

[Thalassa]

But I am looking at it objectively. I don't even like handbags, so I'm not projecting myself onto the situation at all. If I had $20, 000 to spend it's highly likely that I would buy a safe, hybrid-powered vehicle rather than any item of clothing.

I just think you're rationalizing the cars because you like them. I think the subjectivity is the other way around.

 

[uumlau]

Well, an INTJ would pay $20k for a handbag if it worked like a TARDIS ... you know, much larger inside than the outside. Heck, if it could take me back in time to get to work at 8 AM when I wake up at 10 AM, that'd be real sweet, too.

 

[Amargith]

I think this is a matter of context. That handbag would be way more useful to me than a pretty car ever could be as I live in the middle of town, have no parking space, don't have a drivers license and am female and therefore in need of a handbag every day. And yes, it does help me to be in a good mood to have something I genuinly like with me every damned day.

So when I decide to spend my money, the handbag will be way more worth it than a car ever could be. When a beau decides to buy me a gift, he'd better well get the handbag if he wants me to be happy and for that to translate into my mood to him. Just saying

And I'd imagine this probably works the same for a female INTJ...or am I wrong, ladies?

at Uumlau

 

[Zarathustra]

I think this is a matter of context.

Yes, it is a matter of context.

That context happens to be the utility functions of each of the hypothetical purchasers.

 

[Athenian200]

I thought that Zarathustra was condemning anyone who spent more than their means.

Basically, if someone bought a car that they couldn't really afford on their budget, that was also bad. I thought that he was defending the right of people with disposable income to waste their money on whatever they like (including handbags), but saying that it was foolish to waste money on fancy things when you have a tight budget.

If that's what he was arguing, it makes sense. However, if he was in fact arguing that people should buy expensive cars that they want but can't really afford, then that's illogical, especially if he's applying the opposite principle to handbags.

I really can't understand the kind of language he's using here, though... that Wikipedia page is too confusing, complete with math problems, so I'm not going to assume I had any clue what he meant.

 

[Amargith]

Ok, that link is scary..are they seriously quantifying and 'mathefying' desire, happiness and well...feelings?

That's just backwards, imho.

 

[Zarathustra]

Ok, that link is scary..are they seriously quantifying and 'mathefying' desire, happiness and well...feelings?

That's just backwards, imho.

That's the basis of practically the entire field of economics.

It's all founded on the philosophy of utilitarianism propounded by John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, et al.

Trust me, I had my qualms with it as well, and it's not perfect.

But if you take it with a grain of salt, and actually study it, it makes a pretty good (albeit, not perfect) amount of sense.

And as you start getting into a more advanced understanding of it, it actually starts to make a lot more sense.

It's basically the study of how people make decisions to maximize their happiness.

And, moreover, how they do so in light of budgetary constraints.

As you might imagine, such a field of study would be highly relevant to the discussion we've been having.

It also happens to be one of my fields of study at university, so I'm rather well versed in it.

 

[uumlau]

Ok, that link is scary..are they seriously quantifying and 'mathefying' desire, happiness and well...feelings?

That's just backwards, imho.

Typologically speaking, it's where T and F meet.

Both T and F understand "money." T likes that it can be objectively quantified. F likes that it measures "value."

As Z notes, it isn't perfect, but it's about as good a translation between T and F that can be managed.

 

[Amargith]

I dunno, Z.

At the risk of inflicting your wrath (and granted, I don't know anything about this field), this sounds like an ass-backwards way for emotionally incompetent people to make decisions about, ironically, a field they clearly don't know what to do with (aka F). Though I'd imagine it would have its uses in todays society..there's no doubt about that. It just smells like a shortcut. A corrupted one, at that.

@ Uumlau: There are other ways to bridge that gap and keep the intrinsic value F provides. This just sounds like strip-mining to me. Understanding is very much wanted and translation is needed, but there's better translations out there, i'd say.

 

[Zarathustra]

I thought that Zarathustra was condemning anyone who spent more than their means.

Basically, if someone bought a car that they couldn't really afford on their budget, that was also bad. I thought that he was defending the right of people with disposable income to waste their money on whatever they like (including handbags), but saying that it was foolish to waste money on fancy things when you have a tight budget.

If that's what he was arguing, it makes sense. However, if he was in fact arguing that people should buy expensive cars that they want but can't really afford, then that's illogical, especially if he's applying the opposite principle to handbags.

I really can't understand the kind of language he's using here, though... that Wikipedia page is too confusing, complete with math problems, so I'm not going to assume I had any clue what he meant.

The first two sentences were exactly what I meant.

 

[Zarathustra]

I dunno, Z.

At the risk of inflicting your wrath (and granted, I don't know anything about this field), this sounds like an ass-backwards way for emotionally incompetent people to make decisions about, ironically, a field they clearly don't know what to do with (aka F). Though I'd imagine it would have its uses in todays society..there's no doubt about that. It just smells like a shortcut. A corrupted one, at that.

Satine, I will not bring my wrath upon you (at least not for what you've said thus far), but, please trust me, if you and I were to have a long conversation in which I could explain it to you, you would go, "Oh, ok, that makes sense."

It would likely still rub you the wrong way (as it did me, for a long time), but, the more you understand it (and the more you understand its limitations as well), the less this will be the case.

Just fyi, both psychologists and economists offer models to policymakers, and it is the economists' models that are found far more effective at explaining behavior.

When it really comes down to it, it is psychology, in some sense. It's decision theory.

If you've ever seen 'A Beautiful Mind', the main character's key contribution for which he won the Nobel Prize (i.e., "game theory") is one of the most important developments in economic (and decision) theory over the last 50+ years; and, in the movie, he had his key moment of clarity while deciding with his buddies what would be the most rational way for them to approach a group of girls...

 

[Amargith]

Grin..I'll take your word for it. And I don't doubt that economists came up with a more useable and practical model. Whether it's more accurate...I guess I don't know.
When it comes to happiness and desire however, I think I'll stick to the philosophy of Yoga. Granted, not as applicable in economics, but definitely applicable towards measuring happiness

 

[uumlau]

@ Uumlau: There are other ways to bridge that gap and keep the intrinsic value F provides. This just sounds like strip-mining to me. Understanding is very much wanted and translation is needed, but there's better translations out there, i'd say.

It's how money has worked for millennia.

Two people haggling over a price are quantifying how much each values the good or service to which the price applies. The more "important" the good or service to a particular individual, the higher the price one is willing to pay. Supply and demand curves are all about this. It is nothing but quantifying personal values.

Yes, there are better translations, especially with respect to understanding F as heuristics vs T as analytical, but most such translation is rather abstract. Money is about as concrete as it gets, and that is a feature, not a bug, of the system: everyone understands money at some level, even if each individual's understanding varies.

 

[Athenian200]

The first two sentences were exactly what I meant.

Aha!

My hunch was right then! I may not understand complicated algorithms used in high-level economics (I am a college dropout because I couldn't even pass Algebra 2), but I do understand how money and budgeting work.

I think the reason that people got confused, was because you answered one question with the assumption that the person had plenty of disposable income, but the other with the assumption that it was limited, and somehow people got the impression that you were answering both questions under the same assumptions.

This kind of thing happens all the time in debates. People often misunderstand one another and end up arguing around the question while not realizing that that they've made different assumptions.

 

[Rex]

Basically, if someone bought a car that they couldn't really afford on their budget, that was also bad. I thought that he was defending the right of people with disposable income to waste their money on whatever they like (including handbags), but saying that it was foolish to waste money on fancy things when you have a tight budget.
.

Thats my view.. give or take.. If you are really really unhappy without those objects i guess it justifies it IF you still manage to make things go around..

Btw you have had a lot of good posts in this thread Athenian

 

[Thalassa]

It's how money has worked for millennia.

Two people haggling over a price are quantifying how much each values the good or service to which the price applies. The more "important" the good or service to a particular individual, the higher the price one is willing to pay. Supply and demand curves are all about this. It is nothing but quantifying personal values.

Yes, there are better translations, especially with respect to understanding F as heuristics vs T as analytical, but most such translation is rather abstract. Money is about as concrete as it gets, and that is a feature, not a bug, of the system: everyone understands money at some level, even if each individual's understanding varies.

Thank you for explaining that.

HOWEVER, what is worth this or that much money not only varies from person to person but from culture to culture. For example, in the United States we pay performers more than we pay people who perform vital services to the community. This isn't so in some other nations.

So what's important may be measured on a curve, but it's not inherently or objectively the same.

 

[Kalach]

I'm lost. INTJs are using status symbols now?

Hay, babay, check out my "car", bring your "handbag", we'll go for a "ride".


How do you people live with yourselves.

 

[InvisibleJim]

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?

Even if the available alternatives aren't practical there are means to just make oil that aren't drilling.

Fischer-Tropsch chemistry is a method of creating hydrocarbons thats been around since the 1920s via turning any biomass into Synthesis Gas; it's just very expensive. The only places it has ever been rolled out in a big way was in Germany during WW2 and SA during Apartheid as they couldn't import oil. A similar process is used to take methane and reform it via. syngas into high octane aromatic compounds in a refinery to increase fuel quality.

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?

I would argue that to the car or the handbag enthusiast that if they can afford to spend such a sum then it is entirely acceptable. The concept of money is that to the car enthusiast the car is worth more to them than the $65k+whatever to have it; similarly for the handbag enthusiast the handbag is worth more to them that $19900.

So it's actually rational, they are just factoring in their likes and dislikes into the system; which will be different from others likes and dislikes.

I have the classic scenario; I'm looking to buy a car right now or I can put money into my mortgage. Complication: I both like nice cars and to not be exposed to the risk of interest rate rises. I guess eventually I'll make some sort of decision as to the correct balance that is personal to my own selective and subjective criteria. I've already produced a spreadsheet showing how the amount in the mortgage changes the potential interest+capital payments varying the interest rate to help me gauge what might happen and how much would be left for a car and then I can then look at the cars I like and see what I can afford.

There is a secondary consideration; would the car enthusiast spend an additional $65k more on a car or the handbag enthusiast spend $19900 more if they had no clothes on their back or if they can't afford to feed themselves? That would be an addiction more than a enthusiasm for cars. See smokers who complain about the price of vegetables or petrol. You need a certain amount of food and nutrition and petrol to do what you do to earn money to feed and clothe and have a roof over your head. Does it make sense to compromise that when you are spending $4k a year on cigarettes?

In this case the individual is potentially irrational because they give up something that they need in favour of something that they want.

 

[Kasper]

Bunch of squabbling moved to the graveyard. If you're gonna fight each other at least make it a mud fight and provide photos, if you can't do that, stay on topic.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I dunno, Z.

At the risk of inflicting your wrath (and granted, I don't know anything about this field), this sounds like an ass-backwards way for emotionally incompetent people to make decisions about, ironically, a field they clearly don't know what to do with (aka F). Though I'd imagine it would have its uses in todays society..there's no doubt about that. It just smells like a shortcut. A corrupted one, at that.

@ Uumlau: There are other ways to bridge that gap and keep the intrinsic value F provides. This just sounds like strip-mining to me. Understanding is very much wanted and translation is needed, but there's better translations out there, i'd say.

How did I miss this..

SATINE!!! Is F = Emotion? No!

S and N are about irrational likes and dislikes - I like purple (sensing) I like ferrets and their ways (intuition!). F is about balancing internal/external systems based upon hunches of what seems right and wrong and T is all about critically analysing internal/external rational and logic!

Ferrets, clearly an S/N dichotomy! If I were to prefer them for their looks and fluffyness that would be in a sensing way, if it was because of their quirky abilities and how they relate to nature then a bit more intuition.

Ferrets: Do they know Jung? Does Jung know MBTI? Is god a ferret?