[Fi] The Trouble With Fi

[Thalassa]

So...racisms may come from type, but it can't be proven either way because type can't be proven?

No racism doesn't come from type.

 

[onemoretime]

Racism comes from power structures and hierarchies. While the sorts of people who prefer to maintain those structures and hierarchies may be more inclined to act in racist ways, the idea that one group of individuals is superior to others, based on any sort of classification, is unfortunately present within all of us.

 

[teslashock]

No racism doesn't come from type.

God forbid we attempt to theoretically associate our principles with our personalities.

 

[Snuggletron]

this thread is racist.

 

[Thalassa]

God forbid we attempt to theoretically associate our principles with our personalities.

The fear of 'the other' has been established in pretty much all human cultures. This fear of the other encompasses racism, sexism, xenophobia...it's behind nationalism and family loyalty. While racism may be continually perpetuated by people of certain personality types, that's not where it inherently springs from.

 

[Moiety]

God forbid we attempt to theoretically associate our principles with our personalities.

Specially considering an NF and an SJ can share some of the same values even though them come from completely different places and for different reasons.

 

[Thalassa]

Specially considering an NF and an SJ can share some of the same values even though them come from completely different places and for different reasons.

Exactly.

 

[Fecal McAngry]

Doesn't matter if you think you're justified in it.

You're still being racist.

Could you tell me what I believe, or that Jensen believes, that fits that shoe in your opinion?

 

[teslashock]

The fear of 'the other' has been established in pretty much all human cultures. This fear of the other encompasses racism, sexism, xenophobia...it's behind nationalism and family loyalty. While racism may be continually perpetuated by people of certain personality types, that's not where it inherently springs from.

Hah yeah I agree with this for the most part (as I stated earlier), but there is more elaboration that could be done.

I was kind of just being a pain in the ass for the sake of being obnoxious...

Specially considering an NF and an SJ can share some of the same values even though them come from completely different places and for different reasons.

Associating a type with a behavior/value does not imply that other types cannot theoretically possess the same behavior/value.

A type that does not align with its theoretical behavior/value does not invalidate the abstract theory.

A behavior that does not align with its theoretical type does not invalidate the abstract theory.

 

[Stanton Moore]

God forbid we attempt to theoretically associate our principles with our personalities.

Yet you haven't made any association. How about these:

What type is most greedy?
How about most-likely to objectify women?
(if you can answer the question regarding racism, then these questions shouldn't be off limits.)
It's probable that there are aspects to the human condition that are not dreamt of in your philosophy....but it does raise this question: what does it profit two entp's to band together and argue the inarguable?

 

[onemoretime]

It's not the belief per se. It's the utter myopia to the policy implications of those views.

Just because you might be able to hold an idea as a value-neutral fact, doesn't mean others won't get very emotionally charged about the same thing, and act upon it, or that people won't try to exploit that idea to their own ends.

You can't escape politics.

 

[Fecal McAngry]

It's not the belief per se. It's the utter myopia to the policy implications of those views.

Just because you might be able to hold an idea as a value-neutral fact, doesn't mean others won't get very emotionally charged about the same thing, and act upon it, or that people won't try to exploit that idea to their own ends.

You can't escape politics.

Could you be more specific? BTW--why would I want to escape politics? What does that mean?

 

[teslashock]

Yet you haven't made any association. How about these:

What type is most greedy?
How about most-likely to objectify women?

When did I ever say that any type is most likely to be racist?

I said that certain functions may lend themselves to racist views.

I never made any claims about the type ratios of racists or the percentage of certain types that are racist. That would be a fundamentally absurd thing to do.

(if you can answer the question regarding racism, then these questions shouldn't be off limits.)

Agreed, and I could give you some functions that might lend themselves to greed and the objectification of women.

The way I see typology is as a descriptive device, not a predictive one. I can say: this person is racist, this person is an XXXX, so this is the cognitive reason that said person upholds racist ideals.

Type is not a good predictive tool, as our behaviors/values are not only a manifestation of our cognitive predispositions. Type X brought up in one environment may be completely different from Type X brought up in another environment. Two people of the same type who experience the world differently are bound to be different, regardless of that which drives their cognition.

It's probable that there are aspects to the human condition that are not dreamt of in your philosophy....but it does raise this question: what does it profit two entp's to band together and argue the inarguable?

Two ENTPs? What? Last I checked there was just one mind monopolizing my brain.

And as far as "profit"? Well, if you see entertainment as a currency, then I suppose I'm a modern-day Rockefeller...

 

[teslashock]

Just because you might be able to hold an idea as a value-neutral fact, doesn't mean others won't get very emotionally charged about the same thing, and act upon it, or that people won't try to exploit that idea to their own ends.

Agreed.

But does that mean that we should withhold from formulating ideas that have the potential to offend or be exploited?

 

[onemoretime]

Agreed.

But does that mean that we should withhold from formulating ideas that have the potential to offend or be exploited?

Of course not. It's just wiser to be judicious in the dissemination of the raw ideas without refinement.

For example, it isn't very judicious to say that there is a genetic component to the difference in intelligence between persons of African descent and European descent, when we can't even define what intelligence is in the first place.

 

[teslashock]

Of course not. It's just wiser to be judicious in the dissemination of the raw ideas without refinement.

For example, it isn't very judicious to say that there is a genetic component to the difference in intelligence between persons of African descent and European descent, when we can't even define what intelligence is in the first place.

Ah, fair enough.

I don't think what I said was nearly as provocative as the above, however (but don't listen to an ENTP for social etiquette ). Nor was it made to sound nearly as scientific and empirical. Genetics is a science. Typology ain't!

 

[onemoretime]

Ah, fair enough.

I don't think what I said was nearly as provocative as the above, however (but don't listen to an ENTP for social etiquette ). Nor was it made to sound nearly as scientific and empirical. Genetics is a science. Typology ain't!

Yeah, but it does promote some stereotypes, namely that SJs are idiotic conservatives, NFs (especially NFPs) are irrational liberals, so on and so forth, when experience has shown that this isn't necessarily the case at all.

 

[Fecal McAngry]

it isn't very judicious to say that there is a genetic component to the difference in intelligence between persons of African descent and European descent, when we can't even define what intelligence is in the first place.

For the purposes of the above "intelligence" is fairly well, if imperfectly, defined.

Amazon.com: The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence) (9780275961039): Arthur R. Jensen: Books

Stalking the Wild Taboo -Jensen's The g Factor

 

[teslashock]

Yeah, but it does promote some stereotypes, namely that SJs are idiotic conservatives, NFs (especially NFPs) are irrational liberals, so on and so forth, when experience has shown that this isn't necessarily the case at all.

Again, agreed.

I don't think there's too much wrong with generalizing/stereotyping based on archetypal ideas, just as long as we are willing to admit that stereotypes may not hold as much basis in reality as we tend to give them credit, that on an individual level, stereotypes mean nothing, and that most stereotypes are theoretical and susceptible to confirmation bias, so we still need to approach reality with an open mind in any given situation.

The fact that people are unable to escape the confines of stereotyping when analyzing the world is pretty obnoxious, but again, I don't believe that this implies that it's wrong to generalize on a theoretical level.

 

[onemoretime]

Again, agreed.

I don't think there's too much wrong with generalizing/stereotyping based on archetypal ideas, just as long as we are willing to admit that stereotypes may not hold as much basis in reality as we tend to give them credit, that on an individual level, stereotypes mean nothing, and that most stereotypes are theoretical and susceptible to confirmation bias, so we still need to approach reality with an open mind in any given situation.

The fact that people are unable to escape the confines of stereotyping when analyzing the world is pretty obnoxious, but again, I don't believe that this implies that it's wrong to generalize on a theoretical level.

It's not, but it does lead to some very nasty things. The 20th Century is the story of that.