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

[Not_Me]

I appreciate a marvelous piece of engineering.
A hands free self flushing toilet is also an engineering marvel.

Define rational, and then show me how it is irrational to like nice cars.

It's when your choice is consistent with your greater goals. Paying big bucks to acquire so little gain in performance is inefficient unless you're filthy rich. Your resources could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Zarathustra]

A hands free self flushing toilet is also an engineering marvel.

Yes, and I've seen people with them who can afford them, and they're rather neat.

I don't really value them all that highly, but other people can choose to purchase what they want, and I'm mature enough to not necessarily hate on them for it.

It's when your choice is consistent with your greater goals. Paying big bucks to acquire so little gain in performance is inefficient unless you're filthy rich. Your resources could be better spent elsewhere.

And if I make enough money to easily afford the nice car I choose to drive?

p.s. You might want to learn to use the quoting system better. As it stands, you're putting words in my mouth.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Your resources could be better spent elsewhere.

So could your intelligence.

 

[Not_Me]

Because they often represent the pinnacle of available vehicle technology.

But the pinnacle is only slightly better than the average, but cost several times more. It's inefficient allocation of your resources.

Because they can be beautiful.

Common cars can be also.

Because they are (much more often than not) made well, using excellent materials.

Once again, it's a small improvement at a very great price.

Because they go fast and that excites me.

The speed is limited by law. You cannot reach your destination significantly faster. Isn't it just a feeling of dominance over other men?

 

[IZthe411]

Really man, life's too short.

 

[Not_Me]

Yes, and I've seen people with them who can afford them, and they're rather neat.

I don't really value them all that highly, but other people can choose to purchase what they want, and I'm mature enough to not necessarily hate on them for it.

Saying that a choice is a poor allocation of resources is not hate. It is an objective statement of the facts as I see it. Are you implying that values should always be accepted without criticism?

And if I make enough money to easily afford the nice car I choose to drive?

Irrelevant. It is still an inefficient allocation of resources. It simply has less impact on your financial well being if you are rich.

p.s. You might want to learn to use the quoting system better. As it stands, you're putting words in my mouth.

I am making the assumption that you trying to explain your choice rationally. If you're just saying "I like what I like. Don't criticize me for it", then the discussion will be boring.

 

[Zarathustra]

Isn't it just a feeling of dominance over other men?

No.

Is it possible that you are projecting?

That you have feelings of resentment, inferiority, and/or being dominated over, and thus are projecting this supposed desire for dominance onto others, even if it's not really there?

 

[Not_Me]

Really man, life's too short.

What sort of comment is that? This is a discussion forum. The OP presented a very valid criticism of the obsession with expensive status cars.

 

[highlander]

No.

Is it possible that you are projecting?

That you have feelings of resentment, inferiority, and/or being dominated over, and thus are projecting this supposed desire for dominance onto others, even if it's not really there?

It's possible he is doing exactly as you suggest but actually, I think there may be a point to what he is saying.

 

[uumlau]

What sort of comment is that? This is a discussion forum. The OP presented a very valid criticism of the obsession with expensive status cars.

"obsession" - no
"expensive" - hardly (some are, but not all)
"status" - meh.

As an INTJ, do you understand the fun that can be had with a laser pointer and polaroid lenses? A nice car is no different, it just appears to conform to the values you arbitrarily assign.

 

[Zarathustra]

Saying that a choice is a poor allocation of resources is not hate.

No, but you're definitely hatin'.

It is an objective statement of the facts as I see it.

Well, as I've shown below, the way you're seeing it is wrong.

Are you implying that values should always be accepted without criticism?

No, and nothing I said would imply that.

I said "I would not necessarily hate on them for it".

If they show reasons for hating on them for it, then I will.

Merely owning the car is not enough to properly determine that.

I already mentioned this earlier in the thread.

Irrelevant. It is still an inefficient allocation of resources. It simply has less impact on your financial well being if you are rich.

No, it's not irrelevant.

If it fits into my personal utility equation, then it is extremely relevant.

You don't seem to understand that different human beings have different utility equations.

You are making the mistake of believing that other peoples' utility equations must be like yours.

I am making the assumption that you trying to explain your choice rationally. If you're just saying "I like what I like. Don't criticize me for it", then the discussion will be boring.

According to your own definition of "rational", if one buys a car because it fits into one's greater goals, then it is a rational decision.

Therefore, the only requirement for one's car choice to be rational is that it fits into one's greater goals.

Therefore, in order for your conclusion to be correct, it would have to be impossible for buying a "nice car" to fit into one's greater goals.

But different human beings have different goals (and utility equations, and circumstances), and, as such, it is possible for buying a "nice car" to fit into the greater goals of some human beings.

For you to assume that it would be impossible for such compatible goals, utility equations, and/or circumstances to exist, is, simply put, wrong.

There are indeed human beings who possess such compatible goals, utility equations, and/or circumstances.

The mistake you are making is very evident: You are making the mistake of assuming that your own personal, subjective goals, utility equation, and/or circumstances, which, apparently, do not include and/or are not compatible with owning a nice car, must apply to all other human beings.

And then, when this is not the case for other people, you call these people "irrational".

It is a very common form of argumentation.

You see it all the time.

It is, at its essence, a form of bigotry.

It's also why your argument is a complete logical failure.

All you're really doing is attempting to force your own personal, subjective value judgments (about fucking cars, for fuck's sake) on others.

Congratulations.

 

[Zarathustra]

The OP presented a very valid criticism of the obsession with expensive status cars.

Valid only according to a certain set of axioms/values.

You really need to read some philosophy or something, in order to learn how to critically think.

You seem to have a very poor handle on logic, rationality, utility functions, values, and pretty much everything I've seen you argue thus far.

 

[Not_Me]

Is it possible that you are projecting?

Perhaps. But I have yet to see you present anything to prove that it does not apply to you.

That you have feelings of resentment, inferiority, and/or being dominated over, and thus are projecting this supposed desire for dominance onto others, even if it's not really there?

When rational reasons are not presented, I fall back on the most probable explanation for the behavior, status.

Actually, the desire for dominance is ingrained into the T psyche. There is nothing wrong with it, as long as it is expressed in a constructive manner. I don't think paying to acquire feelings without actual achievement is constructive.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Not Me what are your hobbies?

The speed is limited by law.

Track days you twat waffle.

 

[Not_Me]

"obsession" - no
"expensive" - hardly (some are, but not all)
"status" - meh.

As an INTJ, do you understand the fun that can be had with a laser pointer and polaroid lenses? A nice car is no different, it just appears to conform to the values you arbitrarily assign.

Absolutely. But those toys are cheap. A status car is too high of a price for too little gain. Inefficient use of resources.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Expense goes up the closer you get to the cutting edge of technology.

It's true for anything.

In F1 it costs XX,XXX,XXX of dollars to gain just a second of speed.

Because of the price should they not try to go faster?

Is it wrong if I want to get closer to that greatness, even if only in some small measure, and at an (arguably) silly price?

More importantly why do you care anyways?

 

[Not_Me]

No, but you're definitely hatin'.
Are you projecting?

You obviously don't know what you're talking about here.

No offense, but your debate debate style is very SF-like. You simply assert value judgments with no proof.

According to your own definition of rational, if one buys a car because it fits into their greater goals, then it is rational.

Therefore, the only thing that must be true in order for one's car choice to be rational, is that it fits into one's greater goals.

Therefore, you lose.

But you did not state what your greater goals are. I don't even know if you are being consistent at this point. If it's hedonism, then there's no basis for rational debate.

 

[Zarathustra]

Is it possible that you are projecting?

Perhaps.

It certainly seems so.

But I have yet to see you present anything to prove that it does not apply to you.

When did this become a specific case about me?

This discussion is about the general rationality or irrationality of buying a car one wants to buy.

Furthermore, as any intelligent person would know, there is no proof I could provide other than my own personal testament.

Regardless, as I demonstrated two posts ago, in the general case, even by your own definition of rational, you are wrong.

When rational reasons are not presented, I fall back on the most probable explanation for the behavior, status.

You are misusing the word rational, and you have absolutely no proof, other than personal opinion, that "status" is the most probable explanation.

Actually, the desire for dominance is ingrained into the T psyche.

Do you have any proof for this?

Also, how is it even relevant?

 

[Not_Me]

Not Me what are your hobbies?
Track days you twat waffle.

Say what?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Tell me your hobbies so I can tell you why you are a piece of shit for pursuing them.