I am cynical about politics.

[The Cat]

In the land of the blind, the man with one eye...probably keeps that fact to himself, and profits off of it in secret.

 

[anticlimatic]

But why I would create another wall of text and do complex research in trying to find links/proofs on English if I once again will get one liner from you ? (if such links even exist, as I already mentioned). Especially since it is obvious that you aren't really going to listen, since that can be seen directly in your attitude (now and in general). I told you a number of times that I don't have to worry about medical bills in my life and why is that, what is both anecdote and practice, not theory. Already my grand grandmother had a benefit of this system and there is nothing theoretical about it. However I have this because my entire political system agrees with that premise instead that they sell me to big pharma and insurance companies. Therefore the local debate is more on the level of should we nudge the system it in this way or that way, but no one is fundamentally against it (and you have the same story all over the continent). Therefore your starting claim simply isn't fundamentally correct and that is the only thing I ever claimed. I guess I can post some pictures and names for the people that I have already numbered as well as what they have done. But I don't see the point since you passed over that as it is nothing.

I'm sorry if you feel like you're wasting your time, but you haven't yet said much that's on topic. My starting claim was psychological/spiritual in nature- on the nature of human beings, not a policy debate. As far as I can tell you're arguing that pushing things like Medicare for all isn't a self interested move by a politician. Like I said I disagree, and haven't seen any evidence to the contrary yet. That's not on me.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm sorry if you feel like you're wasting your time, but you haven't yet said much that's on topic. My starting claim was psychological/spiritual in nature- on the nature of human beings, not a policy debate. As far as I can tell you're arguing that pushing things like Medicare for all isn't a self interested move by a politician. Like I said I disagree, and haven't seen any evidence to the contrary yet. That's not on me.

I said that because you are asking me to make very big and complex post and you could once again sink me with one liner, that I don't have enough links or whatever. I used medicare for all since that is probably one of the most concrete examples why politics isn't always rotten, although that is perhaps hard to understand if you never benefited from such system. My politicians could surely personally profit in the case that they give more room to medical free market. But they haven't done this, to same degree this is perhaps deeper self interest but I wouldn't say it is more than half. But forget that, there are examples of good politics that are much less polarizing by American standards. In other words take a look at many of our leaders that came back to defend the homeland when it got attacked, when the odds were objectively bad and against them (the war of my childhood that I mention too often). However they did this out of pure belief while they could have just stayed in some developed western country and have more than nice life. Also in my country we had a group of enthusiasts that set the goal to stop evictions if there is something fishy. On the day when you should get evicted you just call them and they swarm your place. Therefore you can't get evicted due to the crowd. However this whole process due to clearing those crowds and tragic destinies that got plenty of press coverage as far as I know resulted with a law that you can't get evicted if this is your last real estate. Therefore the debt will have to wait and eventually be paid in pieces. What actually came really handy in COVID days. Since now we don't seem to have a problem and we don't need to stretch the laws too much in current situation. While the activists through the process officially became political party on it's own and they entered the parliament. But in the end they dissolved/ended because more formulated and even more progressive party showed up. Which sucked in the base.



There are truly endless examples of these kinda of things here but what I am actually trying to tell you is that you are mistaking your culture for human nature. What is very easy mistake to make. Here we never had colonialism and our history revolves around standing together against big foreign kingdoms and empires. That is why the culture is so much more super ego based than some other parts of the world. Since the odds were against all of us on half of our crossroads. This is exactly why I have certain reservations about "free media", which are evidently trying to individualize and scatter the society. What is both culturcide and a physical threat in the terms of well being. However the key political difference is that here it is much easier to enter the parliament as a third party (I mean here the terms is kinda pointless since we have 20 parties in the parliament). However since it is much easier to enter parliament being a politicians isn't such a elitist privilege. What means that in the mix you get much more politicians that are "genuine" or average people. Plus if you get enough of them the parliament will change it's nature since "mainstream" will need their votes and if a few genuine people starts to debate between themselves the mainstream must also rise the quality of "their game" in order to remain relevant. In other words based on culture and policy I am trying to make the case that being "vermin" isn't fundamental human nature. It can be but that isn't set in stone.

 

[ceecee]

There are truly endless examples of these kinda of things here but what I am actually trying to tell you is that you are mistaking your culture for human nature. What is very easy mistake to make.

Exactly.

 

[anticlimatic]

I said that because you are asking me to make very big and complex post and you could once again sink me with one liner, that I don't have enough links or whatever. I used medicare for all since that is probably one of the most concrete examples why politics isn't always rotten, although that is perhaps hard to understand if you never benefited from such system. My politicians could surely personally profit in the case that they give more room to medical free market. But they haven't done this, to same degree this is perhaps deeper self interest but I wouldn't say it is more than half. But forget that, there are examples of good politics that are much less polarizing by American standards. In other words take a look at many of our leaders that came back to defend the homeland when it got attacked, when the odds were objectively bad and against them (the war of my childhood that I mention too often). However they did this out of pure belief while they could have just stayed in some developed western country and have more than nice life. Also in my country we had a group of enthusiasts that set the goal to stop evictions if there is something fishy. On the day when you should get evicted you just call them and they swarm your place. Therefore you can't get evicted due to the crowd. However this whole process due to clearing those crowds and tragic destinies that got plenty of press coverage as far as I know resulted with a law that you can't get evicted if this is your last real estate. Therefore the debt will have to wait and eventually be paid in pieces. What actually came really handy in COVID days. Since now we don't seem to have a problem and we don't need to stretch the laws too much in current situation. While the activists through the process officially became political party on it's own and they entered the parliament. But in the end they dissolved/ended because more formulated and even more progressive party showed up. Which sucked in the base. There are truly endless examples of these kinda of things here but what I am actually trying to tell you is that you are mistaking your culture for human nature. What is very easy mistake to make. Here we never had colonialism and our history revolves around standing together against big foreign kingdoms and empires. That is why the culture is so much more super ego based than some other parts of the world. Since the odds were against all of us on half of our crossroads. This is exactly why I have certain reservations about "free media", which are evidently trying to individualize and scatter the society. What is both culturcide and a physical threat in the terms of well being. However the key political difference is that here it is much easier to enter the parliament as a third party (I mean here the terms is kinda pointless since we have 20 parties in the parliament). However since it is much easier to enter parliament being a politicians isn't such a elitist privilege. What means that in the mix you get much more politicians that are "genuine" or average people. Plus if you get enough of them the parliament will change it's nature since "mainstream" will need their votes and if a few genuine people starts to debate between themselves the mainstream must also rise the quality of "their game" in order to remain relevant. In other words based on culture and policy I am trying to make the case that being "vermin" isn't fundamental human nature. It can be but that isn't set in stone.

I get what you're saying. Can government help people? Sure. Though of course it's really just people helping people with their tax dollars while government plays arbiter.

You're an INTJ, yes? INTJs have a hard time distinguishing between people and their thoughts or ideas. Government is two things- the ideas and laws that are put on paper, and the people who cycle in and out to influence what's written down. Pushing policy that the people want is the self interested tactic used by politicians to achieve power, and depending on where they start- in either democrat or republican occupied local areas- is where they end up, since flip flopping is counter to their interests, and at least in America either side always has a chance eventually at ultimate power (as allowed by law). What I'm open to considering, per your request, is the idea that politicians are not motivated by self interest and achieving power.

INTJs also struggle with adequately reconciling the super ego with the id- too much Te gives way to the idea that the superego represents the lions share of an individual, because INTJs typically have control issues and dislike the idea that they might be governed by forces beyond that. There's also this idea that force of will can render the superego of society as something collectively benevolent- and while it's true that will power can influence the superego for good, it can also for ill, and still says nothing of the id- our inner "innocent sadist." So while your Te might lend itself to a more comprehensive grasp of government-on-paper policy, it fails to achieve a comprehensive grasp on the human condition, which is what I have been considering in this thread all the while- and why I've been "sinking" your posts with one liners. We are still mostly talking about different things.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I get what you're saying. Can government help people? Sure. Though of course it's really just people helping people with their tax dollars while government plays arbiter.

You're an INTJ, yes? INTJs have a hard time distinguishing between people and their thoughts or ideas. Government is two things- the ideas and laws that are put on paper, and the people who cycle in and out to influence what's written down. Pushing policy that the people want is the self interested tactic used by politicians to achieve power, and depending on where they start- in either democrat or republican occupied local areas- is where they end up, since flip flopping is counter to their interests, and at least in America either side always has a chance eventually at ultimate power (as allowed by law). What I'm open to considering, per your request, is the idea that politicians are not motivated by self interest and achieving power.

INTJs also struggle with adequately reconciling the super ego with the id- too much Te gives way to the idea that the superego represents the lions share of an individual, because INTJs typically have control issues and dislike the idea that they might be governed by forces beyond that. There's also this idea that force of will can render the superego of society as something collectively benevolent- and while it's true that will power can influence the superego for good, it can also for ill, and still says nothing of the id- our inner "innocent sadist." So while your Te might lend itself to a more comprehensive grasp of government-on-paper policy, it fails to achieve a comprehensive grasp on the human condition, which is what I have been considering in this thread all the while- and why I've been "sinking" your posts with one liners. We are still mostly talking about different things.

Is this really the best you can do ? I am talking to you about facts, strategy, history and life out side of US and you turn to MBTI to tell me that I live in my phantasy?

 

[Jonny]

@Virtual ghost

I would recommend reestablishing what it is you're actually arguing about. What statement are you attempting to prove or disprove? Consider the following statement, which I presume to be the origin of your current discussion:

pOlitiCiaNs wHO pREtENd tO NoT BE complEteLY seLF INTErESTEd are EVEn woRSe.​

On it's surface, it seems to be suggesting that given the choice between two completely self-interested politicians, the one who is at least honest about that self-interest is better than the one who isn't. It doesn't plainly state that there doesn't exist other possible types of politicians; namely, a politician who isn't completely self-interested. If taken at face value, I suspect you wouldn't have much desire to discuss the matter.

However, it appears you're assuming that through this statement the OP also suggests that there exists no such third option. In other words, that the OP is making two assertions:

1. All politicians are completely self-interested.
2. Politicians who pretend not to be completely self-interested are worse than those who do not.

Based on the context of the discussion that transpired, I suspect that your interpretation is correct. Namely, when you stated the following:

Actually "They are all the same" is one of the main punchlines for distimulating the vote and making sure that only partisan people vote.​

and the OP responds with

i DIsAgree. PROVE It IF yoU cAn, and i MighT chaNGE mY mIND.​

However, I would suggest that you ask the OP to plainly state where his mind currently is, precisely, so you can better determine whether it even needs to be changed, or whether it is even worth it.

If the OP wasn't asserting #1 above, then I might suggest that you part ways and you make better use of your time. Even if the OP were asserting #1, I find your desire to engage with such an absurd premise to be equally unwise. After all, to any reasonable person such a claim fails by virtue of our collective understanding of the human condition. Unless of course self-interest is defined so broadly that a prolific serial killer and beloved pre-school teacher are deemed to be equally and "completely self-interested" in their actions. In that case, one might conclude that #1 is true while also recognizing it to be utterly meaningless.

I'm going to state my thoughts plainly:

1. The degree to which a person is self-interested is based on how exclusively they consider their own interests irrespective of the interests of others.
2. Politicians, like the broader population, exist on a spectrum of self-interest; e.g. some are more self-interested than others.

I suspect you, and most other reasonable people, would agree with these sentiments (if not completely, at least in principle). If a person disagrees and you wish to change their mind, then perhaps establish what criteria they would accept as evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time I'm afraid.

 

[Jaguar]

Is this really the best you can do ? I am talking to you about facts, strategy, history and life out side of US and you turn to MBTI to tell me that I live in my phantasy?

You should know by now his pattern is to speak in terms of groups of people or try his damndest to put an individual into one. INTJs, blah-blah-blah. Millennials, blah-blah-blah. Lefties, blah-blah-blah. Groups.

 

[Jonny]

You should know by now his pattern is to speak in terms of groups of people or try his damndest to put an individual into one. INTJs, blah-blah-blah. Millennials, blah-blah-blah. Lefties, blah-blah-blah. Groups.

Surely that can’t be true...only a vapid moron would behave as you describe.

 

[The Cat]

Surely that can’t be true...only a vapid moron would behave as you describe.

Or a tragic idealist...

 

[Jonny]

Or a tragic idealist...

A more generous interpretation, to be sure.

 

[anticlimatic]

Is this really the best you can do ? I am talking to you about facts, strategy, history and life out side of US and you turn to MBTI to tell me that I live in my phantasy?

Incorrect.

I'm trying to get us on the same page, by explaining how and why we are on different pages, so you can finally get down to the business of persuading me that there are successful politicians out there who are motivated by something other than self interest. Preferably with anecdotes (my personal favorite type of data point, as an empiricist), names, etc. Or just one. I'm sure you can do it, I'm not trying to goad. I'm just trying to get you to do it. Its OK if you don't want to though. You said my statement was factually incorrect, I disagree, and I'm content to leave it at that.

 

[Lark]

You should know by now his pattern is to speak in terms of groups of people or try his damndest to put an individual into one. INTJs, blah-blah-blah. Millennials, blah-blah-blah. Lefties, blah-blah-blah. Groups.

Soup. Campbells. Tomato. Chicken noodle. Soup.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I suspect you, and most other reasonable people, would agree with these sentiments (if not completely, at least in principle). If a person disagrees and you wish to change their mind, then perhaps establish what criteria they would accept as evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time I'm afraid.

You should know by now his pattern is to speak in terms of groups of people or try his damndest to put an individual into one. INTJs, blah-blah-blah. Millennials, blah-blah-blah. Lefties, blah-blah-blah. Groups.

Of course I get it and see it, I am here for too long to miss that. But as I said I am here for "cultural exchange" and therefore I simply wanted to see where this leads. Since in this part of the world I am not sure that we have any people quite like modern American right (what was kinda my main point through the thread). I mean what on Earth has to be going in your head that you believe in all these kinds of things that are so out of touch with reality. Can't you see that the country is falling apart and your allies are looking for some other friends due to your leadership and habits ? I guess not. However this forum is basically the only direct contact I have with US and the only one I ever had. So I must say that here I have seen and heard stuff that I didn't encounter anywhere else in life (from good to downright absurd). Therefore I dig through this more than a local would even when that looks kinda autistic on my part. But yes, that exchange got absurd. I am sorry Anti but that is just a fact, you live too much in your head and don't watch the real or big picture news. This is politically incorrect to say but I am ok with being politically incorrect.



In other words here there are no terms like woke culture, there is no twitter politics, no hydroxychloroquine, no 24/7 live news, no private prisons, no second amendment, no death penalty, no primaries, no stock market in mainstream news, no developed conspiracy theory culture, no electoral college .... and therefore I am just amazed with the amount of what are for me insane talking points. Since the name of the game is that you can believe whatever you want, what is delusional by definition if you plan to live (especially in a crisis).

 

[Virtual ghost]

Incorrect.

I'm trying to get us on the same page, by explaining how and why we are on different pages, so you can finally get down to the business of persuading me that there are successful politicians out there who are motivated by something other than self interest. Preferably with anecdotes (my personal favorite type of data point, as an empiricist), names, etc. Or just one. I'm sure you can do it, I'm not trying to goad. I'm just trying to get you to do it. Its OK if you don't want to though. You said my statement was factually incorrect, I disagree, and I'm content to leave it at that.

Well, to be honest I don't care that much about what you think about politicians to pursue this to the end of the earth. I have given if you plenty of examples, anecdote, personal experiences, explanation and if you can't see that as data or meaning I really can't help you understand. I have even told you what to research at the start but you act as you didn't do that. For me you are trapped in your Machiavellian worldview(and culture) and that is just it. The cultural divide is just too big it seems. I don't want to be your enemy but I evidently can't make you understand.

 

[Jaguar]

I am here for "cultural exchange" and therefore I simply wanted to see where this leads.

If I'm looking for a Ferrari, do I go to a Hyundai dealership to see where it leads? I do not.

 

[Virtual ghost]

If I'm looking for a Ferrari, do I go to a Hyundai dealership to see where it leads? I do not.

This would stand if I am looking something in particular. I came here for the typology which I discovered by pure accident because here we don't use it. But I somehow stayed for the politics and I am not even sure why. I guess I kinda liked random foreign talking points because I am coming from environment where everything is basically set up in the opposite way. This is exactly why the world has seen the cold war. It is perhaps hard to grasp it but I lived 0 days of my life in what US defines as genuine Capitalism. To me this is all "foreign", but interesting.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ok, before I leave this thread I will take one last stab at this.



For me the problem lies in the term "self interest" and claiming that everything revolves around that in politics (or elsewhere). Are there people who are like that ? Yes, but claiming that everyone is only like this is gross simplification, even if we are taking just about political figures. Especially since most of them are actually some kind of a mix in this regard and therefore claiming that they all care only about themselves seems pretty black and white, as well as false. However I am not 100% sure that works for every culture or sub-cuture and here I am perhaps wrong. For me "interest" is basically another way of saying "financial interest" and "social interest". However for me the catch is in claiming and thinking that people will always do or should do what is in their interest without many exceptions (since if you do that you are basically mentally ill person, sociopath or something similar to that). While the reason why I pumped medicare for all into this mix is exactly since that program allows you to do less often what are your "interests" and more often what you actually want to do. What are for me two different things and that in the end somewhat contains the whole "rat maze" social model from being everywhere 24/7. However if you live rat maze 24/7 this is perhaps hard to grasp.

 

[Jaguar]

This would stand if I am looking something in particular. I came here for the typology [...]

I think you two jokers deserve each other. Neither of you have a clue about what you actually type in your own posts.

 

[Vendrah]

I dont know if I have something really good to say here but...

I dont think every person on the planet is just endlessly and inherently selfish, although I dont believe that there are people who are a 100% altruistic as well - I dont think they would survive this world. I dont think making a "complex post" about that is worthy.

Anyway, if anyone claims everybody is good or everybody is bad, its more up to them to prove me that than I to disprove them.
This discussion is start to really show the forceful religious pattern of reasoning...
"XXX affirmation of my sacred religious book says so, prove me wrong. Is there evidence against it? No, so it is real, you lack arguments"
Basically, I can say that at the opposite corner of our galaxy there is a pinky happy unicorn, and if you cant prove me wrong then the pinky happy must exist and I wont change my mind because I am so righteous, since nobody proved me wrong anyway.
Lack of disproof makes something possible, not factual, its different.

And just for the sake of MBTI, these sources mixing Ego and ID are forcing Freud into typology. Jung was aware of Freud's work and mentioned Freud plenty of times in his books, I think its very likely that Jung did evaluate and reject the introduction of ID/Ego/Super Ego on typology.
I do agree that we could type our ID/Ego/Super Ego.
Most websites state guesses as if they are true, so there is not really a solid explanation of "INTJ ID/EGO/SUPER EGO dynamics", even if one website decided to state as there is and some others just sort of copy and pasted. (this was sort of referring to [MENTION=20035]anticlimatic[/MENTION] but its sort of off topic).