[MBTI General] Newspapers, Sensation, and Freethinking

[Provoker]

PeaceBaby: Since the world is only constituted of your perception of it.
Provoker: No. I never stated this or implied it.

That's right. I stated it, it's my argument. I didn't say you did.

Ok fair enough. However, to avoid this sort of miscommunication in the future one should not use "your" in a dialogue when discussing one's own argument--especially on the internet where verbal content takes precedence over intonation (Note: in realtime, where tone, accents, animation, and mannerisms are typicially more important in communicating ideas for many people, 'you' is more forgiveable, though still it's a rather loose way of speaking). That said, it would be more effective to generalize and state, "my thesis is that the world is only constituted of people's perception of it," and then provide evidence to support your thesis. This would have avoided the miscommunication that ensued.

Your smug sense of self-importance and inability to view the issue in an explorative way would take the pleasure out of it, so no thanks.

This is an ad hominem fallacy.

You haven't. Who's making "rash assumptions" now? I was pointing out that if the only tool you have to point out another's argumentative weakness is to bash their IQ, then who is the one lacking intelligence here? Certainly not me. That leaves ... you.

When you bring in the word 'dis' it denotes a qualitative experience on your behalf: that the content of what was said was such that it collided with your own perception of yourself and made you feel 'dissed.' I only questioned your intelligence when you clearly identified with Kangirl in stating that you don't know what this thread is about. To date, you two are the odd ones out as everyone else has given a more or less valuable response that is on topic while the two of you have not.

I only made one assumption, and then not really - I was trying to make an initial point that your god-like freethinker wouldn't exist.

In your defense, I will concede that some of your assumptions are logical, but just so the record is clear you did make more than one assumption. Here's just a few:

1. You assumed that the god-like freethinker doesn't exist.
2. You assumed that I think the god-like freethinker is perfect.
3. You assumed that if your type of perfection doesn't exist, neither does mine.
4. You assumed (jokingly or not) that more sex appeal and crosswords may induce freethinkers to buy their newspapers.
5. You assumed that perfection cannot exist in an imperfect world.
----
Thus, the statement that you only made one assumption is false.

And in case you hadn't noticed, you have made several assumptions yourself. 1. You latched on to and expanded on the word perfection from my OP, I did not. 2. My feelings are not hurt. Not even a little bit. 3. And I am fully equipped with sufficient intelligence despite your attempt to diminish it.

I agree that I made assumptions which I reason are correct.

1. You introduced the idea of perfection, despite my best efforts in the OP to launch a discussion about marketing to freethinkers.

2. Then why use words like 'dis'? If we are to leave feelings out of it, then words like this should not enter the discourse. If used, one is compelled to associate a word like that with a qualitative feeling experienced by the reader due to the content that's been communicated.

3. My ambition was never to diminish your intelligence. In fact, I doubt I'm in a position to have any effect on your intelligence. What I did do was speculate that this could be linked to the reason why you and Kangirl don't understand (or don't want to understand) this thread while others have given interesting responses. By the way, in one of your posts you did provide an "obvious answer" to the main question and I noted that. I'm a proponent of symmetry: bringing IQ into it was only a slight provocation to counterbalance your placation of Kangirl's feined incomprehension. In truth, I don't think an appeal to low IQ is any more relevant than you and Kangirl actually not understanding what the OP is about. So, are we cool?

 

[Night]

This is an ad hominem fallacy.

Your calculated 'vanity' is certainly a misconception, Provoker, but not for the reasons you've defended.

This thread is a poor man's attempt at a SolitaryWalker quasi-flame/thought experiment.


As an aside, I wonder who anonymously rated this thread '5 stars'? Only a single 5 star vote. Hmmm.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Since I believe you are making an effort, I will reply.

Ok fair enough. However, to avoid this sort of miscommunication in the future one should not use "your" in a dialogue when discussing one's own argument--especially on the internet where verbal content takes precedence over intonation ...

Fair enough; agreed.

This is an ad hominem fallacy.

True, I am stating that to discuss the topic with you seems unappealing to me, but I am not trying to skirt the issue. I sense your mind may not be as open to certain ideas. Perhaps we can meet in the middle; would you like to try?

Bear in mind that by calling my intelligence into question you are guilty of argumentum ad personam.

When you bring in the word 'dis' it denotes a qualitative experience on your behalf ...

It is a slang term that captured the essence of your disrespect towards me simply because you could not understand my allegiance with another poster.

In your defense, I will concede that some of your assumptions are logical, but just so the record is clear you did make more than one assumption. Here's just a few:

My responses in green:

1. You assumed that the god-like freethinker doesn't exist. - I am stating that they don't exist, not assuming they don't.
2. You assumed that I think the god-like freethinker is perfect. - yes, that's an assumption.
3. You assumed that if your type of perfection doesn't exist, neither does mine. - that was a tongue-in-cheek comment wrt another post I had made earlier in another thread. Of course you would know nothing about that, nor would I expect you to. It's not an assumption per se but does not hold any weight as an argument without me substantiating the origin of my thought. Again, I was going for a quick response rather than the measured discourse you were anticipating.
4. You assumed (jokingly or not) that more sex appeal and crosswords may induce freethinkers to buy their newspapers. - I didn't think that would work, I was just trying to be funny ... clearly that didn't work!
5. You assumed that perfection cannot exist in an imperfect world. - a good point of discussion. And true, that's the essence of an assumption as well.

Thus, the statement that you only made one assumption is false.

Correct; I made two then.

I agree that I made assumptions which I reason are correct.

My responses in green:

1. You introduced the idea of perfection, despite my best efforts in the OP to launch a discussion about marketing to freethinkers. - let's agree to disagree on this one, shall we? You have thrown us along this merry path by really digging into the literal application of the word.

2. Then why use words like 'dis'? If we are to leave feelings out of it, then words like this should not enter the discourse. - it's a summative word that sends a message without requiring a long drawn out sentence to communicate the same thought. As I see it you did disrespect me in your post by insinuating a (supposed) lack of IQ. Surely you can argue better than that; why stoop to such a level? But you did not, I repeat, did not hurt my feelings. It was annoying yes, and a cheap shot, and you did make a false assumption here.

3. My ambition was never to diminish your intelligence. In fact, I doubt I'm in a position to have any effect on your intelligence. What I did do was speculate that this could be linked to the reason why you and Kangirl don't understand (or don't want to understand) this thread while others have given interesting responses. - your ambition was to diminish me, by insinuating I am not intelligent. Plus, let's be frank - the other posts echo the essence of my OP in this thread: your perfect free-thinker doesn't exist, and if they did, it would be pointless to market to them because a.) they would have no desires to titillate or b.) they would be a robot. Why overlook the parts of my response that have addressed your question and focus only on what annoys you?

At any rate, I appreciate your measured response and continue in the hopes of further understanding between us in this dance of thought.

 

[Provoker]

1. Your calculated 'vanity' is certainly a misconception, Provoker, but not for the reasons you've defended.

2. This thread is a poor man's attempt at a SolitaryWalker quasi-flame/thought experiment.


3. As an aside, I wonder who anonymously rated this thread '5 stars'? Only a single 5 star vote. Hmmm.

1. Thanks for the input. Though I'm not sure that it contributes anything of real value to the thread.

2. The second point is irrelevant and something of a potshot so I won't respond to it.

3. The third point is basically irrelevant as well, but I will comment on it because there's an implicit logical fallacy in your statement, namely, an ad populum fallacy. Let us remind ourselves that the Nazis were democratically elected in 1933. Thus, an appeal to popularity is not grounds for logical validity. That said, of course it was me who gave this thread a five star rating!

My responses in green:

Now you're assuming I'm not color-blind. Unforgiveable assumption.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ True too - and I am a web developer so therefore know better. But if you did have red/green color-blindness (most common type affecting primarily men) you still would have been able to see that particular green as a khaki-yellowish hue.

But yes, shame on me LOL!

 

[Venom]

Ok fair enough. However, to avoid this sort of miscommunication in the future one should not use "your" in a dialogue when discussing one's own argument--especially on the internet where verbal content takes precedence over intonation (Note: in realtime, where tone, accents, animation, and mannerisms are typicially more important in communicating ideas for many people, 'you' is more forgiveable, though still it's a rather loose way of speaking). That said, it would be more effective to generalize and state, "my thesis is that the world is only constituted of people's perception of it," and then provide evidence to support your thesis. This would have avoided the miscommunication that ensued.



This is an ad hominem fallacy.




When you bring in the word 'dis' it denotes a qualitative experience on your behalf: that the content of what was said was such that it collided with your own perception of yourself and made you feel 'dissed.' I only questioned your intelligence when you clearly identified with Kangirl in stating that you don't know what this thread is about. To date, you two are the odd ones out as everyone else has given a more or less valuable response that is on topic while the two of you have not.



In your defense, I will concede that some of your assumptions are logical, but just so the record is clear you did make more than one assumption. Here's just a few:

1. You assumed that the god-like freethinker doesn't exist.
2. You assumed that I think the god-like freethinker is perfect.
3. You assumed that if your type of perfection doesn't exist, neither does mine.
4. You assumed (jokingly or not) that more sex appeal and crosswords may induce freethinkers to buy their newspapers.
5. You assumed that perfection cannot exist in an imperfect world.
----
Thus, the statement that you only made one assumption is false.



I agree that I made assumptions which I reason are correct.

1. You introduced the idea of perfection, despite my best efforts in the OP to launch a discussion about marketing to freethinkers.

2. Then why use words like 'dis'? If we are to leave feelings out of it, then words like this should not enter the discourse. If used, one is compelled to associate a word like that with a qualitative feeling experienced by the reader due to the content that's been communicated.

3. My ambition was never to diminish your intelligence. In fact, I doubt I'm in a position to have any effect on your intelligence. What I did do was speculate that this could be linked to the reason why you and Kangirl don't understand (or don't want to understand) this thread while others have given interesting responses. By the way, in one of your posts you did provide an "obvious answer" to the main question and I noted that. I'm a proponent of symmetry: bringing IQ into it was only a slight provocation to counterbalance your placation of Kangirl's feined incomprehension. In truth, I don't think an appeal to low IQ is any more relevant than you and Kangirl actually not understanding what the OP is about. So, are we cool?

see this thread is proof that cognitive function order is absolute bullshit . I seriously know few ENTJs (first position Te!) who would go the ridiculous extremes Provoker does to maintain teh logikz of the thread.

logic is not always supreme. there are many statements that require an intuitive judgement not exactly provable by any means other than "this seems to be a more than common perception among people". Hyper rational thoughts without content are as meaningless as content without hyper rational thought.

1. You assumed that the god-like freethinker doesn't exist.
2. You assumed that I think the god-like freethinker is perfect.
3. You assumed that if your type of perfection doesn't exist, neither does mine.
4. You assumed (jokingly or not) that more sex appeal and crosswords may induce freethinkers to buy their newspapers.
5. You assumed that perfection cannot exist in an imperfect world.

re:2. In all practicality, why exactly does "God-like" and virtually perfect (as far as humanity is concerned) need to be differentiated? it doesnt. logic is not some happiness dispensing vending machine

re:3 I think its a fair assumption to assume that there are no *perfect free thinkers* in this world... we dont need to go have an empirical analysis OR prove it via deductive logic. Its an obvious intuitive idea to see that the idea of a perfect human would be so subjective, that it would be highly personal.

For example, your idea of a perfect human would probably be anyone with aspergers. Either you yourself have it and your no better than for example the hippies who think other hippies are the ideal perfection, or you are so caught up in logic that you actually emulate someone with aspergers. Again, logic only takes you so far.

Finally, you made a rather poor effort at communicating your initial idea. It was basically a wall of text with run on sentences and overly verbose language. You may think it was all required, but it isnt. Just because you'd rather read the guide for the perplexed version of Kant's ideas doesn;t make you "of low IQ". It simply means that you would prefer a far better (for the reader) form of communicating the same ideas. Rather than admit fault, you started telling people they were too dumb to understand your *genius* ideas :rolli:. Here's to provoker! the tragic hero, who must live the unimaginable life of having to live with people *gasp*, less intelligent than he!? say it isnt so?!

 

[Blank]

Newspapers, like fashionable shirts and sweet-smelling colognes, are carefully crafted to appeal to the sensational needs of its readers. Often, this is accomplished by constructing a paper that is presentable, uses large splashy fonts that get the reader's attention, has sensationally-luring headings, and pictures that are emotionally provocative. The content (if we can call it that) is also sensationally-rigged, riddled with catchphrases rather than careful critical analysis in plain English. This mastery of excitation, which is pursued by newspapers and critical for stimulating popular demand and consumption of its stories, is especially effective when catering to sensors who comprise 70 percent of the population.

Because Intuitives don't use the five senses.

With the technological innovations afforded by the communications revolution, the shrinking of spacetime from globalization, and with sensors comprising the majority, the way in which ideas and stories are presented becomes more important than the ideas themselves, given that the newspaper is driven by the bottom line.

Bolded for truth.

Yet, at a more sophisticated level of society, a strata which is more cerebral and skeptical in nature, these adornments, with their appeal to passion, the senses, and emotion, become comparatively more superfluous, though by no means forgotten. What becomes increasingly important is the capacity to tickle the reader's intellect in a way that puts the newspaper ahead of its competitors who are targetting the same group.

A sophisticated strata of society that is more cerebral in nature? This is just an elite grade of disembodied heads capable of sustaining themselves with their own intellect; a strata of pretentious dickheads, if you will.

Here the sensation takes new form. The sensation may be in the way a pundit glues all the details together into a coherent whole that makes the thinker think: Aha! Still there is arousal and excitation, not in the form of an appeal to the senses and emotion, but to the intellect. But what about to the freethinker who is beyond any emotional, sensational, or intellectual seduction? Does such a god-like person exist? If so, what would be the newspapers' tools for getting this person to buy their papers?

The person you're referring to is a NEET wallowing in his or her own self-misery because he or she has the insight to see the world as it is, the pathology of a god who is above human emotion, and an inner rapport so strong that they can't cope with reality. The only way this person can exist is if they're so existentially depressed that they can't even commit suicide. Otherwise, you've just described a dead person--a person who can't think, feel, or sense anything, which kind of makes this thread pointless.

If this person DOES exist, the way you reach this person is by offering an escape from reality where they can make their own rules and be whatever they want to be (internets). A newspaper can't offer that, nor would any newspaper be profitable that tried...There's already a niche and all of the elite freethinkers who can't cope with reality have already been sucked in, thus there are no newspapers targeting this market.