Thalassa
Permabanned
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 25,183
- MBTI Type
- ISFP
- Enneagram
- 6w7
- Instinctual Variant
- sx
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.
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.
God forbid we attempt to theoretically associate our principles with our personalities.
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.
Could you tell me what I believe, or that Jensen believes, that fits that shoe in your opinion?Doesn't matter if you think you're justified in it.
You're still being racist.
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.
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.
God forbid we attempt to theoretically associate our principles with our personalities.
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.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.