[Fi] Why does everyone hate on Fi?

[Elfboy]

I agree. Elfboy, this is a problem you seem to always have. You take a function or a type you supposedly have and assume that every character trait you have is reflected on these. It often makes your descriptions off.

true. realizing this more and more recently

 

[Elfboy]

This is not an argument. The brain is always changing, so at what point in its development are the conditions for wisdom most ripe? I've read arguments before stating that the slower reaction time of an aging brain (which is less responsive to dopamine) makes for more wisdom in decision-making because it is less affected by emotion and impulse. But why is having a quicker brain necessarily a detriment to wise-decision making? A wise person will take time to thoroughly measure their decisions whether their brain is quicker or slower.



The mere exposure to greater amounts of information means nothing in and of itself. The information needs to have affected the thinking patterns of the individual in such a way that they gained wisdom, and that is by no means brought about by their perception (or even retention) of the information alone. The most you could say is that having greater experience is a necessary but not sufficient condition of being wise, but even that is questionable.

good post!
there are several other areas to take into account when evaluating competence/wisdom such as areas of expertise, habits, lifestyle, education (not just school) and other situational factors. disregarding someone's imput strictly off the premise of age would be rather ignorant and assumptive

 

[onemoretime]

Are you less experienced when you're younger? Yes. Are you necessarily less wise? No. Perhaps it's true that you're likely to gain wisdom as you gain experience (because they're correlated), but it's not guaranteed (because there's no causal link between the one and the other. Experience does not cause wisdom.)

Age is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for wisdom.

 

[Glycerine]

The point of being ageist is 1. biology of the brain and 2. you have taken in a lot more information when you're older.

Seriously? I am 21 and there are several that I have experienced that most people older than me have yet to experience and many most likely never will. I would say that it seems presumptuous and arrogant to assume one is more wise JUST based on age. There are some pretty big dumbasses in the world who are double, triple my age. I make it a rule not to respect people just based on age.... it's pretty arbitrary.

Age is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for wisdom.

Wouldn't experience have more bearing than age on wisdom (so it is not a necessity, persay)?

 

[Octarine]

Age is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for wisdom.

Wisdom depends on experience and capacity to learn. But experience varies greatly between individuals, even those of the same age.

 

[onemoretime]

Wisdom depends on experience and capacity to learn. But experience varies greatly between individuals, even those of the same age.

One - ceteris paribus, a person of greater age has more experience than one of lesser age.

Two - I honestly think everyone has the same capacity to learn. We simply prioritize different things.

Three - Your brain does not reach the level of development to synthesize knowledge into wisdom until age 25. Even then, you're still a beginner.

Point is, that differences in levels of wisdom possessed by people of the same age only begins to differ noticeably in the late 20s into the 30s. What's more, all of those people have more wisdom than people in their teens and early 20s. That's not saying anything bad about the younger people, either.

Wisdom arises from the reflection on opportunities, experiences, and possibilities forever lost. It requires an acceptance of the world that younger folk neither have nor need.

 

[Neutralpov]

more bunny love and less hatez pleeeze. I think I don't quite understand Fi and look down on it sometimes. Fe and Fi might be on different sides a little. Other functions don't have negative affects that are personal like Fi. E.G. looking down on someone vs. being nazi Te, the Fi affects me more as I perceive it sometimes as personal or more on a serious matter (my values) and not an annoying trait.

And speaking of someone younger in age, Elfboy why you not like teh ladies!? nooooooo.....wink wink hop

Where's the ENFP classifieds?

 

[Random Ness]

that doesn't mean you necessarily mean you come to the right conclusions with that information. age (or more appropriately, time) is an opportunity to gain wisdom, not a gurantee. some old people are, frankly, little more than closed minded brain washed imbeciles.

No kidding.

This is not an argument. The brain is always changing, so at what point in its development are the conditions for wisdom most ripe? I've read arguments before stating that the slower reaction time of an aging brain (which is less responsive to dopamine) makes for more wisdom in decision-making because it is less affected by emotion and impulse. But why is having a quicker brain necessarily a detriment to wise-decision making? A wise person will take time to thoroughly measure their decisions whether their brain is quicker or slower.

The prefrontal cortex isn't developed. That's a fact.

The mere exposure to greater amounts of information means nothing in and of itself. The information needs to have affected the thinking patterns of the individual in such a way that they gained wisdom, and that is by no means brought about by their perception (or even retention) of the information alone. The most you could say is that having greater experience is a necessary but not sufficient condition of being wise, but even that is questionable.

Age = you have more experience because you've lived for a longer amount of time. Age = you have more information to make the right decisions. Age =/= you are right. Age is one of the things that gives you a greater opportunity to be right, yes?

You guys, we actually agree with each other, but we're arguing different points. When the points are all considered, they make a complete picture.

 

[Glycerine]

Yes the prefrontal cortex is not completely myelinated until 25 but that doesn't necessarily mean one is going hold more "wisdom" than people younger than them. I keep hypothetically thinking of a sheltered 25 y o vs. an older teen who had to deal with many struggles and had to learn to be resilient. Who is going to be more wise, the one who is sheltered or the resilient one? That's why I don't entirely buy into this "ageist" argument. I have noticed the people who seem to adhere to this type of thinking, usually turn into the snooty, "stick up the butt" 40+ year olds who cling onto the wisdom card because that is one of the only things they have to feel "superior" about.

On a side note, my near 60 year old dad told me the other day that "You are sheltered because you have yet to meet the many incredibly idiotic people of the world....they make morons look like geniuses."

 

[Meek]

Haters gonna hate cus they jelly

 

[Glycerine]

This actually warrants its own discussion in the philosophy subforum, I think.

 

[wolfy]

I'm wiser than all you young punks.

 

[CrystalViolet]

On a side note, my near 60 year old dad told me the other day that "You are sheltered because you have yet to meet the many incredibly idiotic people of the world....they make morons look like geniuses."

This makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. Your dad is so right (not necessarily about you being sheltered).
IMHO, age and wisdom do not go together necessarily. Some people never attain wisdom at all. A rather frightening number actually. I'm not saying I'm overly blessed in the wisdom stakes...just that I do actually learn from my mistakes. A surprising number of folks do not.

 

[Glycerine]

This makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. Your dad is so right (not necessarily about you being sheltered).
IMHO, age and wisdom do not go together necessarily. Some people never attain wisdom at all. A rather frightening number actually. I'm not saying I'm overly blessed in the wisdom stakes...just that I do actually learn from my mistakes. A surprising number of folks do not.

Agreed. Age can be a contributing factor to wisdom but age alone means nothing. Key phrase: can be.

 

[Orangey]

The prefrontal cortex isn't developed. That's a fact.

So what? What does this mean? Does it mean that you can't be wise until you're absolutely fully developed? Can no 23 year-old ever be wiser than any person with a fully developed prefrontal cortex, just because they're two years shy of full development? If not (which I think is likely the case), what's the point of even bringing it up? We would have to be slightly more rigorous if we were going to precisely specify a real wisdom-cutoff age; simply saying "the brain isn't fully developed! The brain isn't fully developed!" unfortunately does not suffice.

Age = you have more experience because you've lived for a longer amount of time. Age = you have more information to make the right decisions. Age =/= you are right. Age is one of the things that gives you a greater opportunity to be right, yes?

No. Experience is one of the things that gives you a greater opportunity to be wise, to a degree, but age and experience are themselves only loosely related (as others have mentioned...a 24 year-old can possibly have more wisdom-relevant experience than some 50 year-olds.) And the degree to which experience is relevant to wisdom (and how much experience is wisdom-relevant) is different for different individuals, so if we had two people, person A (28 years-old) and person B (54 years-old), each with normal amounts of experience for their respective ages, I do not think that it would be safe to say that person B is any more likely to be wise than person A. And that's because there are other equally (or more) relevant factors that contribute to one's level of wisdom (not to mention that they are probably different for different individuals as well.)

You guys, we actually agree with each other, but we're arguing different points. When the points are all considered, they make a complete picture.

No, I think you're confusing the age/wisdom relationship along one's individual lifespan with the same relationship spread over a group of people. With the former, it's possible to say that most single individuals, regardless of their wisdom compared to other individuals, are likely to gain wisdom as they age (meaning there is a positive relationship between age and wisdom.) With the latter, however, that relationship falls apart. We can't say that any individual of greater age is more likely, simply by virtue of their age, to be comparatively more wise than another individual of lesser age. Just because Cletus is probably going to be more wise at 65 than he was at 30, that doesn't mean he's probably going to be more wise at 65 than any (or even most) other 30 year-olds.

 

[Random Ness]

^
1st paragraph: Looks like you didn't read my last two paragraphs before typing this.

2nd and 3rd paragraphs: I don't disagree with you. But age is still a factor. Looks like you admit that yourself.

I was never on the side of thinking age is the only factor of wisdom. People just kind of assumed I was and the debate started.

 

[Glycerine]

It was the "The #1 way to not be taken seriously on online forums. " comment because someone said they were a junior in high school that probably led to that assumption.

 

[Orangey]

^1st paragraph: Looks like you didn't read my last two paragraphs before typing this.

What?

2nd and 3rd paragraphs: I don't disagree with you. But age is still a factor. Looks like you admit that yourself.

No, I don't think it is a factor AT ALL if we're talking about comparative levels of wisdom across a population.

I was never on the side of thinking age is the only factor of wisdom. People just kind of assumed I was and the debate started.

Like Pitseleh said, it's probably because you (and others) were using NegativeZero's age as a way to discredit what he was saying.

 

[NegativeZero]

Except that we were all 17 once, too, and thought we had just as good a grasp on the way things worked as anyone else did.

Then ages 22-25 happened.

The problem with that age is that your brain isn't developed enough yet to comprehend how much your own arrogance blinds you. And yes, everyone is arrogant in some way at age 17.

I think you're confusing the terms 'brain' and 'mind.' I don't actually know if non-physical thoughts are reducible to physical brain states (the materialist would most certainly hope so), but I am also not sure if that's the most problematic assertion in your post. Before someone strawmans me, I am NOT denying the connection between the brain and the mind. This topic is better suited to the philosophy forum, so if anyone is interested in idealism v. dualism v. physicalism debates, I'd be more than happy to contribute to a thread.

I find it odd that your sentiment is, "arrogance is blinding, and everyone is definitely somehow arrogant at 17." Perhaps I'm taking you too seriously, but this is not a valid argument at all, you know.

However, allow me to digress. I am sure when 22-25 happen to me, I will definitely think of my 17 year old self as an idiot. I already think of my three to six months ago self as an idiot, so years should make a huge difference. An interesting note is I've always found people in their early 20s to be unconscionably pretentious and arrogant, whereas I've always perceived teenagers to fundamentally lack wisdom and foresight; and they thereby seem foolish/immature/reckless rather than arrogant.

 

[Random Ness]

What?

You were like, "So you're saying teens can never, ever be wise?!?!?!?" which I wasn't.

No, I don't think it is a factor AT ALL if we're talking about comparative levels of wisdom across a population.

WTF? It's not a factor? Why are you interested in things like MBTI then? Is MBTI not a factor of knowing how someone will act?