Transhumanism ~ MBTI, Enneagram, and Socionics Personality Type

Transhumanism

Philosophy

function

ennea

variant

socio

psycho

INTJ 5

ENTJ 1

5w6 3

3w4 3

sp/so 3

LIE 6

LVFE 4

public myers-briggs votes

(20/07/29 12:01) bibliology: ENTJ

(20/05/01 21:45) tch: ETJ

(20/05/01 19:06) KashifIrfanBhatti: INTJ

(20/05/01 02:35) Thyssen: INTJ

(20/05/01 02:34) phsc: INTJ

(20/04/30 23:00) LadyX: ESTJ

(20/05/01 16:54) Tman: ENT

public function votes

(20/05/01 21:45) tch: ENTJ

(20/05/01 19:07) fleetingpetals1: INTJ

(20/05/01 19:06) KashifIrfanBhatti: INTJ

(20/05/06 10:48) Tman: INTJ

(20/05/01 02:35) Thyssen: INTJ

(20/05/01 02:34) phsc: INTJ

public enneagram votes

(20/05/01 21:46) tch: 3w4

(20/05/01 19:06) KashifIrfanBhatti: 5w6

(20/05/01 15:37) strawberry crisis: 3w4

(20/05/01 02:34) phsc: 5w6

(20/04/30 23:00) LadyX: 3w4

(21/01/18 17:10) Tman: 5w6

public instinctual variant votes

(20/05/01 02:34) phsc: sp/so

(20/04/30 23:00) LadyX: sp/so

(20/04/30 14:40) Tman: sp/so

public tritype® votes

(21/01/18 17:10) Tman: 531

(20/05/01 21:46) tch: 351

(20/05/01 19:06) KashifIrfanBhatti: 531

(20/05/01 02:35) Thyssen: 531

(20/05/01 02:34) phsc: 531

(20/04/30 23:00) LadyX: 371

public sociotype votes

(20/07/20 21:58) ethan: LIE

(20/05/01 19:07) fleetingpetals1: LIE

(20/05/01 19:06) KashifIrfanBhatti: LIE

(20/05/01 02:35) Thyssen: LIE

(20/05/01 02:34) phsc: LIE

(20/05/01 12:07) Tman: LIE

public psychosophy votes

(20/05/01 19:07) fleetingpetals1: LVFE

(20/05/01 02:35) Thyssen: LVFE

(20/05/01 02:34) phsc: LVFE

(20/05/06 10:49) Tman: LVFE

public hexaco votes

phsc

re: 8184

Before I answer your question I have to mention a very important problem with discussions of systems, "what if", so there is that fallacy, moving goalposts, it is not really a fallacy here, BUT keep in mind that, at some point things achieve the "what if the person who wins the elections in a democracy is a psychopath?" and actually that is a very valid point (there is a tendency for not so good people to get to power and Hayek greatly explains it) but then there is also like the "what if LITERALLY ALL COMPANIES GO TOGETHER AND FORM A BIG COMPANY AND THE ULTIMATE MONOPOLY" that is the same as saying like "what if all states merged together and formed an ultra big state?" and all and I mean both cases it wouldn't last BUT WHAT I AM REFERING TO IS THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF "WHAT IF" to extreme cases like "what if some guy decided he would manufacture a nuclear bomb out of nowhere and kill everybody" like this example there is not really any way of countering it but its not like the state can also do much unless it is like China and like extremely authoritarian to the point of knowing what everybody is doing always but "WhAt iF tHeY dOn'T fInD oUt" or whatever and it is a possibility but as you said THIS IS ABOUT TENDENCIES AND WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN, this is not only for you but I feel like some people might appear out of nowhere and comment on the topic and not like that is bad but this is very important!

That can happen and it will, but here is the thing, it is also a very natural thing with... everything, it does not have power unless it reaches extreme levels but then, what is there to do? like let's say that happens in the state, doesn't that like, change the state? or might take it down? like big social changes that happen because of pressure during long term or very strong changes kind of... exist, and there is not much that can be done about it in any form of system, like I'm trying to think of an example in free markets, a good example is like someone chilling flipping their burguers and then the process gets automated, ok, there is no use for their job, sadly they cannot do what they want, if I wanted to like spend all my days calculating the mass of objects I find, would I be able to do that? not everybody can do what they want, there has to be some way of like, keeping things in line, and it is not like that is very possible with the state because people are still going to have to work and in reality it ends up being much worse like if you take high centralization of economies in history.
But the big thing is that, it actually happens all the time and there are things we cannot do about it, it is actually natural to... biology and humans and evolution, like freedom is not absolute and it cannot be, we sadly might have to do things we dislike, the general idea is to minimize it, but if you really value something you can say a fuck the system and go live in the woods unabomber style, or you can try to fight the system with violence and power like I remember a guy got a tractor and tried to demolish some government building somewhere, but this is not really a problem of capitalism it is a problem of... human relations, I'm trying to think of a like realistic case about this other than people losing their jobs but I cannot, but well it is reality and sadly the world is not perfect, this also kind of gets into the nirvana fallacy where "ha your system is not perfect so it is wrong!" while it might offer the best solution to it, but a good example of such pressure in like a public healthcare is kind of easy to imagine, like, there are people who believe in very weird and nonscientifical stuff, like homeopathy and like ancient chinese medicine, and all of that is bullshit, does any state system include that? since it is centralized it kind of is much more like, static, than free markets because there are multiple players, and people can just adapt, like back then it was nice but with the development of science the pressure got big and now... like, in the USSR, could you really follow your beliefs within that (China is a problem as an example because it is ANCIENT CHINESE MEDICINE so the pressure isnt that big!), I think you got what I'm trying to say.

And the way The State is defined by austrian economists is mostly as the monopoly of power within a period of time and within some place, like in Rio de Janeiro favelas, the drug dealers who rule it is the state, and they actually do services the state do so people kind of like them and defend them, because that is how the state was formed, and this gets much more complicated but like, the state is not really a monopoly either because other states exist, but this is why a very causal analysis style of discussion is better, but in a general way this kind of shows that competition is present in basically everything and also the pressure from it! like if all countries do something and one does not they are pressured, which I think shows that it is much more of a human problem than a state or economics problem, but I do think it gets worse with the state because of less adaptability and individualism.

0
2020-05-06 05:42:31pm (post #8185)

strawberry crisis enfp 7

re: 8183

Okay that's a start, but what if pressure is literally insurmountable and exists as an aftershock from entities that practically create the world around you? Being numb to that pressure doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's insignificant—that just means the consent barrier has been erased entirely... and why is that not an infringement upon freedom? And btw The State isn't the only thing with a monopoly on violence (not sure how you're defining it though)

0
2020-05-06 05:13:34pm (post #8184)

phsc

re: 8182

Pressure is not erasure of choice, pressure is natural to any form of social interaction and even within one individual himself, groups of friends have pressure, morality has pressure, but do these have power? I'm not taking individual bits, both are very different concepts, pressure is not really bad, pressure can actually generate an opposite effect at times, you can be pressured to do a thing but that makes you dislike doing such thing, very common actually. When I said that about power it was not purely about concept but how people perceive such concept, which I think adds another layer to it, like power is relative to how people view others making it even more subjective, not purely because it is a concept but because of what concept it is, but a much more objective form of power is violence which is what the state has a monopoly of (or at least tries to have), than lets say, pressure.

0
2020-05-06 05:08:00pm (post #8183)

strawberry crisis enfp 7

re: 8181

I'm disappointed in how you responded but:And this is the big problem I think you have, people do not do things for money for it's sake, people do thing because they want to do things, Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, it is not all about profitThe point is that the pressure exists and that pressure is what drives a lot of all this. I don't have to directly respond to it, but I will be in its sphere of influence. Stop taking individual bits of what I'm saying and try to form your own context out of it. There is nothing "absolute" or "objective" about power just like no concept is. What a dumb thing to try and wrap me up in. None of this has to do with absolutes or laws or specific ways—it's about formation, trends, your place in the world, how to seek better answers, and a better way of thinking.

0
2020-05-06 04:57:39pm (post #8182)

phsc

re: 8180

"I was not originally going to respond to this because you trail off into fantasy ideological territory when how I'm urging you to look it this issue depends on directly looking at the world around you and understanding the conditions that created it more intuitively rather than claiming that "state regulation" is what primarily created the issue"
This is very interesting, there are two major problems in this: I looked at things objectively and to try to explain reality in a way that makes sense and of course getting a lot of external information because people have done that before so why reinvent the wheel, and then I achieved my ideology, but even if that was not the case, it is irrelevant for the discussion! believing in an ideology you believe is fantastical (to this point in your comment you did not explain why!) does not solve it, and any form of looking into society is an ideology if you have a problem and a way of solving it that kind of says how things should or should not work as.

"the issue of regular people being unable to seize control of the market to make it work for them when the reality is that power, no matter where it comes from, will be against you, and the control both governmental and corporate entities have and how they interact with one another is what limits your freedom."
No, simply no, and here is why: you are the market, power is not an objective thing, there are multiple kinds of power and power itself is subjective, corporations naturally should not limit your freedom, they only do it because of the market and regulations that generates all the problems people blame on "capitalism" when in reality it is a problem of CRONY CAPITALISM, because of how regulations limit the market, at first things might look like both are the problem, but in reality, one of them (the corporations) is just doing what costs less, and that case is abusing the state, it happens everywhere and has happened for pretty much the entirity of history, you are right in the part that the interaction betwen them limits your freedom, but the one who actually limits your freedom is the state, and it has always been! which one is pointing the guns at you saying "if you want to sell water on the street, you have to pay us or we will literally steal your body property and put you in jail or kill you if you do not want that to happen", or the corporations who are like "if you believe you should buy this, then buy it!", consent is the difference, the fact that you might not be able to do things that have no need for is irrelevant, that is just because your opinion is the minority, the true democracy are the free markets.

"so I'll now ask that you look at specific interactions between systems in power (or the system that includes them) such as that which you will find in the American healthcare industry, where Democratic politicians, under the pressure of Bernie Sanders' call for Medicare for All, were forced to respond to the appeal of his message with one that would both contrast with his message and sound more appealing to voters but also generate voter outreach, which is where healthcare giants would come in and save the day by whispering the free-market idea of "choice," the freedom to choose between different healthcare plans, into these politicians' ears while lining their pockets with bundled donations and shifting the mass media narrative over to the efficacy of Medicare for All in terms of cost, in turn stacking up power against Sanders and his message while big media consumers begin to fret over "losing" their healthcare despite Medicare for All saving money in the long term and covering all citizens; but if we're going to clash and claim "it's this" or "no, it's that" without thoroughly explaining the mechanisms of how we believe the world works in a way that actually has to do with the world around us, we will end up thinking too ideologically, where centuries-old theory is supposed to explain (with a one-track message, no less) how this extremely complex mess we're in actually has an incredibly simple solution, which I think could almost work if ONLY such theory talked about conditions that create outcomes in a way that adequately frames reality in a way that is consistent with what is actually happening. "I think something being 'overchecked' rather than 'unchecked' is the real problem" is an issue because the very framing of the problem is off-base and the fact that a system isn't working for people can't be always be defected to how much it is in check but rather how it is built."
Sometimes I believe I am arrogant but this takes it to another level, this is wrong on so many levels, so I will not mention the healthcare system in the US because it is not my reality and I am unsure about it and I actually cannot really find a lot of literature about it, but I have an idea of where I might get to know more, but the part where you talk about how "ideologies bad" and "haha it's all centuries old" is so... wrong and it is such a fatal deceit, you see, ideologies only serve as the basics of how things work, how reality works, and it is not static and theories from centuries ago such as like what Adam Smith and David Ricardo wrote is all wrong, and also is what Karl Marx wrote about capitalism, but... there are modern authors, authors that are... alive! I have already told you what my economical schools are, and many authors are alive to this day and still writing! Jesus Huerta de Soto, Ubiratan Iorio, Walter Block, Israel Kirzner, David Friedman, and some authors who have books who greatly explain economical reality to this day, Hayek is an amazing one who explains a lot more, but also Murray Rothbard, even ones I greatly disagree on the pure ideological side of things say some very interesting things about modern society like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, you assume that I am working with very old frameworks that have not been updated, but they have, and it actually explains reality much better than all other ones, and at least within what I have experienced living in Brazil and seeing how everything here works, it seems to be true, and with the information I have about american history it does seem to be, if you have a source that explains to me how centralized planning for any system that can be privatized is going to be better than free-markets on the long term (I've seen the opposite used as an argument but it fails), really let me know because it really goes agaisnt the theories I believe, and I would like to know... how that works, because in Brazil, the public healthcare system is pretty much a pyramid scheme, just like... basically everything else, which makes sense in how the state, politics and democracy all works together (it is not only about the state and corporations! there is more to it! old theory explains it very well in an accurate way to this day! Carl Menger by the way), and well, the brazilian healthcare public system is trash, the private one is heavily regulated and is not great but it is much better, if it was more regulated like other areas it would have absurd prices, you did not refute me in how like, there is no regulation present or whatever? I would like to know if there is none, but why are there no new competitors? that is the core question when there is a problem within economics and basically always its the fault of the state because politicians are a bunch of sociopaths.

"What irks me about free-market economics is that the ideal world imagined by its proponents is shown to be realistic by pointing at the world around you and communicating it in terms of the Economy, which is a concept familiar enough for people to be able to accept the framing offered by the theory, but none of them ever explain how conditions actually affect the world without relying on magical butterfly effect economics where The State is the big enemy to watch for and created the monster that is crony capitalism today."
The first part is true! and the very ending as well, but this, "but none of them ever explain how conditions actually affect the world without relying on magical butterfly effect economics", this makes no sense, you cannot explain a thing completely without making an analysis for the specific case, but the majority of the time, that... happens, it works in tendencies, it is not an exact science, it is not like THIS IS TRUE OR THIS IS FALSE, it is about tendencies, the state can be more efficient than free markets in things at an specific moment, but the tendency is that the state is inneficient and that the free markets are efficient, mostly long term, and even if it does not for some reason like you mention which I do not understand why really... what does? what accurately explains "how conditions actually affect the world without relying on magical butterfly", there are the state-regulation theories which are full of arbitrary things that make no sense and basically always fail empirically while they seem to rely on empiricism and it all ends up generating a snowball and it all blames the free makrets in the end when that idea makes no sense, but other than that, what is there? the gears of the world have to keep rotating, and a thing I love is that even within big state enviroment free market happens because it is the natural human tendency, the only thing present in literally all places in all of history is people trading, and this is just it into big levels, why is the problem in the trading and not the monopoly of power?

"Anyway, I wanted to respond to you because I wanted to offer you a fun way of looking at things like the original issue: people leaving behind nuance and reasoning and instead only identifying their colors to other people. These social dynamics help nobody but people who can make use of that fact—developing consumer demographics by manufacturing alignments through gamifying interaction to create teams and validation bubbles is the perfect way for people with access to websites that people like to visit to profit."
And this is the big problem I think you have, people do not do things for money for it's sake, people do thing because they want to do things, Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, it is not all about profit, it is only about profit if you can trade money for other things, but you can work directly to achieve what you want, like you do, you have this website because you seem to like it, there is no money involved, and you do not need to have money involved! that is the cool part, I mean it does need to keep running because resources are scarce and it has to be well distributed according to human needs but if this was really important for the vast majority of people you could make some money out of it but just to keep it running, or not, and if it became a problem, competitors could come in, economics does not have an objective other than what free trade makes it achieve, it is purely adaptive to what people want, and well, turns out sometimes people are the minority so things I personally value might end, but... it is only my opinion and if I really value it I can go around and try to change the mind of people or generate such services or products, while, if we take the other route, the state, well... it is whatever they say should be made.

"Generating widespread engagement is the ideal way of expanding your market demographic and hosting it in such a way where teams are what drive social dynamics are in incredibly convenient way of organizing that engagement. And social dynamics don't have to be that way. If I wanted to, I could manufacture conditions to turn this website into a niche that caters to very specific audience; if I wanted to, I could manufacture conditions to open the website up to bigger number of people. One of these options generates more market power. How I care about the website may as well be driven by how I treat these market demographics, and the distance I maintain from those demographics is perhaps what determines where I exist within the market-product-consumer relationship: my power within the market, over my product, and over the consumers. No matter what we say about my individual power in this relationship, I will always be limited by the inherent subjugation created by market forces that urge me to respond to issues with an incentive I never asked for—this is the erasure of choice, both for me and the consumer."
And why do you need power? you know, you can do things for yourself only, you can limit your trade spheres and not be part of the market! it does affect you only if it is extremely needed by you or... if you want it to, it does not end choice, it generates it, because other than the market, what is there? a mystical land where... well, if we actually had anarchism and no state or whatever, people wouldn't trade? actually violence itself would become a service, and it would be much more effective than the state is with it, and I mean, it already happens, the Rio de Janeiro government fucking lost control of their fucking city because of drug dealers which they generated by banning drugs over arbitrary opinions, you see, you like it or not but the free market is always going to exist, it is not about power or money, it is about what people want, and it has basically built every single society to this day, maybe not the very primitive ones where I believe the state had a much more useful function, but the free trade was still there, I'm not saying it is right or wrong, I'm saying, it is going to be there and it has been and always will, the market power is not force, the state is force, that is the different, consent, and if you have a third option that might solve things, go ahead and say it! but really, there is a reason there are a bunch of bizarre ideologies that have been applied with state power and basically none with no state power have been applied, and also remember, choice has to be limited, and it always is going to be, it is just the best allocation of resources, and that is the real core problem.

0
2020-05-06 04:15:50pm (post #8181)

strawberry crisis enfp 7

re: 8155

I was not originally going to respond to this because you trail off into fantasy ideological territory when how I'm urging you to look it this issue depends on directly looking at the world around you and understanding the conditions that created it more intuitively rather than claiming that "state regulation" is what primarily created the issue of regular people being unable to seize control of the market to make it work for them when the reality is that power, no matter where it comes from, will be against you, and the control both governmental and corporate entities have and how they interact with one another is what limits your freedom, so I'll now ask that you look at specific interactions between systems in power (or the system that includes them) such as that which you will find in the American healthcare industry, where Democratic politicians, under the pressure of Bernie Sanders' call for Medicare for All, were forced to respond to the appeal of his message with one that would both contrast with his message and sound more appealing to voters but also generate voter outreach, which is where healthcare giants would come in and save the day by whispering the free-market idea of "choice," the freedom to choose between different healthcare plans, into these politicians' ears while lining their pockets with bundled donations and shifting the mass media narrative over to the efficacy of Medicare for All in terms of cost, in turn stacking up power against Sanders and his message while big media consumers begin to fret over "losing" their healthcare despite Medicare for All saving money in the long term and covering all citizens; but if we're going to clash and claim "it's this" or "no, it's that" without thoroughly explaining the mechanisms of how we believe the world works in a way that actually has to do with the world around us, we will end up thinking too ideologically, where centuries-old theory is supposed to explain (with a one-track message, no less) how this extremely complex mess we're in actually has an incredibly simple solution, which I think could almost work if ONLY such theory talked about conditions that create outcomes in a way that adequately frames reality in a way that is consistent with what is actually happening. "I think something being 'overchecked' rather than 'unchecked' is the real problem" is an issue because the very framing of the problem is off-base and the fact that a system isn't working for people can't be always be defected to how much it is in check but rather how it is built. What irks me about free-market economics is that the ideal world imagined by its proponents is shown to be realistic by pointing at the world around you and communicating it in terms of the Economy, which is a concept familiar enough for people to be able to accept the framing offered by the theory, but none of them ever explain how conditions actually affect the world without relying on magical butterfly effect economics where The State is the big enemy to watch for and created the monster that is crony capitalism today.

Anyway, I wanted to respond to you because I wanted to offer you a fun way of looking at things like the original issue: people leaving behind nuance and reasoning and instead only identifying their colors to other people. These social dynamics help nobody but people who can make use of that fact—developing consumer demographics by manufacturing alignments through gamifying interaction to create teams and validation bubbles is the perfect way for people with access to websites that people like to visit to profit. Generating widespread engagement is the ideal way of expanding your market demographic and hosting it in such a way where teams are what drive social dynamics are in incredibly convenient way of organizing that engagement. And social dynamics don't have to be that way. If I wanted to, I could manufacture conditions to turn this website into a niche that caters to very specific audience; if I wanted to, I could manufacture conditions to open the website up to bigger number of people. One of these options generates more market power. How I care about the website may as well be driven by how I treat these market demographics, and the distance I maintain from those demographics is perhaps what determines where I exist within the market-product-consumer relationship: my power within the market, over my product, and over the consumers. No matter what we say about my individual power in this relationship, I will always be limited by the inherent subjugation created by market forces that urge me to respond to issues with an incentive I never asked for—this is the erasure of choice, both for me and the consumer.

0
2020-05-06 01:48:27pm (post #8180)

phsc

re: 8165

"First, you seem to be conflating bad typist with someone. Unless I've misunderstood you've done this several times in the past. Why dose the fact that someone is ignorant about one topic, like MBTI, make them a moron."
It is not about being ignorant about a topic, it is about how one approaches a topic and how one argues or handles such problems in a more... epistemic way, let's say, the way one argues and related (how you mention fallacies), the general way one approaches every single system, the general way one communicates, etc, it all goes into it, not pure ignorance about typology, but you answered it yourself so yeah, good job!

"My second question then is this, how am I supposed to know what votes need explanation at which ones don't? Everyone's views seem obvious to them until there confronted on it, and even then, I do have other things that need to get done. I don't think it's fair to expect me to spend all my mental energy arguing about personality theory on the internet. I'm asking genuinely, this a problem I've been thinking about. I do honestly want to keep talking to you, even though you do tend to be a little exhausting, your someone who always tries to figure why people think the way they do, even when you think there stupid."
The ones that are very far from what is generally accepted for someone, like when you vote Elon Musk ESFP you probably should explain why everybody is so wrong about him, and you do explain that sometimes, but it is rare and it is getting rarer and rarer, like you did explain why you believe I am ISTP and that greatly helps, and that also is evidence for why I think you are stupid, also I can think you are stupid but it does not make me dislike you, it might generate a tendency but one does not imply the other, keep that in mind.

"My last question concerns what you said about how I think about my definitions cognitive functions. I did say I was going to answer that question, in fact I said I would get back to you a couple months ago. I thought I would have a gap of time when I wasn't busy, but I was wrong, and so then I went back to my regularly scheduled busyness. I can't guarantee for sure I'll have the time or energy to write, but if I do, it I would probably have to put aside some time to work out how to say what I want to say, and then write what I basically estimate would be a very small essay on the subject. I would try and make it as comprehensible as possible, but people sometimes have trouble understanding what I mean to say, admittedly I'm a fair bit lazzier online then I would be on a paper, but still. I guess what I'm really trying to ask is this, are you really that interested in hearing what someone who you view as an imbecile has to say? I'd be will to do my best to write it if that's really something you would want to read, but I wouldn't blame you if you weren't that interested."
It is just so I can know if your definitions fit some specific system and if your definitions have problems, but within the definitions EVERYBODY ELSE USES you are stupid, that is the thing, you can change my mind on you being stupid, but within some systems like socionics or even MBTI there is more centralization and I think trying to fix the things you and basically only you believe would greatly help with typology having meaning, because what you vote people as has no meaning, since you are living in another dimension with your definitions.

0
2020-05-02 08:46:12pm (post #8169)

Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE

re: 8163

That tone won't help you win any favors. I'm aware I can be an arrogant asshole but I've never declared myself the best typist on the site. It reeks of an easily wounded pride.
This poor page has had enough of our arguing. Move it somewhere else.

1
2020-05-02 08:28:44pm (post #8168)

Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI

re: 8165

I just answered my first question, your calling people morons based of there reasoning, not there votes, sorry about that.

0
2020-05-02 08:20:02pm (post #8167)

Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI

when I said "with someone" I meant "with a moron." Sorry

0
2020-05-02 08:13:07pm (post #8166)

Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI

re: 8161

I think what you've said here makes sense. I suppose on a website like this, there really is no other evidence to go off of as to what someone was thinking other then the username of the person who voted, your guesses as to why they voted that way and whatever they put in the comments. I guess I just have three questions then.

1: First, you seem to be conflating bad typist with someone. Unless I've misunderstood you've done this several times in the past. Why dose the fact that someone is ignorant about one topic, like MBTI, make them a moron.

2: My second question then is this, how am I supposed to know what votes need explanation at which ones don't? Everyone's views seem obvious to them until there confronted on it, and even then, I do have other things that need to get done. I don't think it's fair to expect me to spend all my mental energy arguing about personality theory on the internet. I'm asking genuinely, this a problem I've been thinking about. I do honestly want to keep talking to you, even though you do tend to be a little exhausting, your someone who always tries to figure why people think the way they do, even when you think there stupid.

3: My last question concerns what you said about how I think about my definitions cognitive functions. I did say I was going to answer that question, in fact I said I would get back to you a couple months ago. I thought I would have a gap of time when I wasn't busy, but I was wrong, and so then I went back to my regularly scheduled busyness. I can't guarantee for sure I'll have the time or energy to write, but if I do, it I would probably have to put aside some time to work out how to say what I want to say, and then write what I basically estimate would be a very small essay on the subject. I would try and make it as comprehensible as possible, but people sometimes have trouble understanding what I mean to say, admittedly I'm a fair bit lazzier online then I would be on a paper, but still. I guess what I'm really trying to ask is this, are you really that interested in hearing what someone who you view as an imbecile has to say? I'd be will to do my best to write it if that's really something you would want to read, but I wouldn't blame you if you weren't that interested.

0
2020-05-02 08:10:12pm (post #8165)

Fuzzy

Teru doesn’t exist

0
2020-05-02 05:22:35pm (post #8164)

phsc

re: 8162

No, I am the best typist on this website, you suck Jacobus, I am not an amataur in psychosophy, you are the amateur, why don't you follow what you said and leave the website? nobody cares about your votes or your opinions, they all have no meaning or value, while mine objectively do, but being insulted by you means I'm doing the right thing, also I do not only do it with ones I do not like, retard, some people actually defend trying to achieve things like truth.

0
2020-05-02 04:25:49pm (post #8163)

Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE

re: 8161

phsc you aren't an arbiter of correct typology (particularly in systems where you're clearly an amateur like psychosophy) and your constant policing of forum members you don't like is tiresome. please keep your petulant sperg rants to yourself for once and take a time out.

1
2020-05-02 04:17:48pm (post #8162)

phsc

re: 8160

Tman, what matters are arguments made over function votes, not the votes themselves, what you are doing turns either into an ad populum (more people believe he is INFJ so INFJ is right!) or... into nothing because it means nothing, all these votes have no value because NOBODY EXPLAINED THEM and they are out of touch with reality, since such voters (you and Jacobus) use different definitions and in general way different frameworks with a mentality that generates like tumblr level function magic (this part only applies to you) while you do not even mention the source you all use for the fucking function definitions and I have asked so many times.
It is not an ad hominem because by default such votes have no epistemic value because there is no justification, all but my ISFP vote which has that big comment, but Jacobus constantly does votes that seem out of reality with what seems to be basic (mostly on socionics, he even admitted that he just goes by vibes), and with psyche yoga he seems to use different definitions for multiple things when compared to the website which basically means his votes mean nothing, and the same applies to you since you do not explain what definitions you use and you probably mix all systems up and you also do not understand any of the fucking systems that are more centralized like socionics because you do extremely dumb votes constantly, you also do not understand J and P and enneagram at all, like, your votes mean nothing, because you are stupid, but I think common sense to that level goes too far for you to understand, and within typology communities ad-hominem when talking about WHO IS A GOOD TYPIST is IMPLIED because THE TOPIC IS AD HOMINEM, THE TOPIC IS PEOPLE, and anyone can vote anything so if we did not differ a vote that says I am ESFP by functions would have the same value as a vote that says I am INTJ or INTP or whatever, which is just ridiculous. Also I do have many votes without justification but a lot I have made justification in Discord - sometimes in private situations - and I am capable of defending them very easily but I am not going to spend that much time on polls that seem to be generally agreed on the type unless there is something else to it.

0
2020-05-02 03:52:09pm (post #8161)

Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI

re: 8152

PHSC: Your committing an ad hominem!
PHSC seconds earlier: All functions votes on your page don't count, because the people who made them are all stupid!

0
2020-05-02 03:35:12pm (post #8160)

Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI

re: 8148

There are definitely a large portion who are overly optimistic, I'm not thinking of any individual thinkers mind you, more within the community as a whole. I'm not trying to bad mouth all Transhumanists, and I most certainly didn't mean to imply anything about your beliefs. When I posted my original comment, I would have had no way of knowing your thoughts on transhumanism; I only learned you were a transhumanist when you said so in this thread.

0
2020-05-02 02:39:37pm (post #8159)

phsc

re: 8156

why dont you give teru direct access of your account?

0
2020-05-02 12:51:45am (post #8157)

Fuzzy

wym

3
2020-05-01 07:34:19pm (post #8156)

phsc

re: 8153

People changing your mind into consuming their things is bad? if they change your opinion... it's your opinion, you do not have to buy things? if you are talking about machine learning algorithms suggesting you things, is that bad? it does not dictate your choices, it gives you suggestions and tries to change your mind
But if you are talking about when a monopoly or a cartel happen, basically always there is state regulation over it because the state is a monopoly and buying off politicians is the most effective way of forming such things, and within a true free market situation actually cartels cannot hold, and monopolies can be good (Milton Friedman uses Da Beers diamonds as an example of good monopolies) but actually monopolies other than the state are impossible (yes, this is weird) because the only definition that makes sense without being arbitrary for a monopoly is a thing owned by the state but this is getting too complicated and specific. What happens is that there are no new players getting in, which happens if it is impossible for them to get in, or extremely hard, or not lucrative, I don't know the details of the US healthcare system but, I can say for sure it is better than any form of public healthcare system, and it is going to spend your tax money in a less efficient way, but within what I know, which is the brazilian reality, I will use a different example, internet services, these are very regulated, offer extremely expensive services that are trash, why are they like that? because ANATEL regulates it all, and it is pretty much impossible for one to create a company without being very close to a politician, I am unsure about the details of the US healthcare situation but basically always it is like what happens with brazilian internet, healthcare in Brazil works pretty much fine, there is the private one which is great and not so expensive, and there is the public one that is trash, everybody wants the private one, literally everybody but not everybody is able to afford it, the problem is that the government does not allow lower-level options to form because of the regulations, the same also happens with power industries in Brazil, like if you want to open an hydroelectric power plant, you can't, and it is not like such cases have good regulations that are valid, like "do not use things that can cause cancer on people", it's stupid regulations, like, in the hydroelectric power plants case you literally have to fucking have air conditioners in every room someone is going to use, why? there is no reason for that, it's some dumb shit that applies to everything, that centralized power is terrible but in actual free market situations it does not happen, a good example in Brazil are bakeries and pizzarias, there is basically no regulation other than some stuff that I believe is fine like not allowing pizzarias to pollute too much or cook things in poor conditions and all, and... there's no monopolies! and it is not because it is a smaller service, because there are big players in such markets but they are unable to get it all because there is a lower level player also offering the service, TLDR, it is not being unchecked, it's being "overchecked" that kills a system, I might study the case of the US healthcare but I do not have the information I need at least yet, but in the US history is has been like that so that is why I'm using such examples, read The Progressive Era by Rothbard, it has a lot of examples of how that happens.

0
2020-05-01 07:05:02pm (post #8155)

fleetingpetals1 4w5 Sx/Sp EVFL

re: 8152

Votes are always subject to change.

0
2020-05-01 06:51:07pm (post #8154)

strawberry crisis enfp 7

re: 8146

"Also Google and social media give what people want, it is not like they make people use them without people wanting to use them, I see no problem in that, it is not what I want (social media, Google is actually still useful) but if I did not want to use Google I'd look for another service, just because few companies give a great service it does not mean it is wrong or bad? it does centralize it but it does not mean that competition will not exist in the future, just look at the history of internet and check for how many companies went to shit, Apple and Google and Microsoft started out of nowhere at some point. And like my mom does not need to use Tor as much as I do not need to use Facebook, people do nto seem to understand how easy it is for corporations, and even governments, to lose all their power, it is very easy, it is like chess, one wrong move and you lose all of your advantage.

You really do not understand my points either because I agree with the "concentrated power" part, it's just that some things are really, really hard to change."

This only demonstrates that you don't understand what concentrated power looks like. "One wrong move and you lose all of your advantage" does not change that corporate influence as it exists with its affect on the world will always dictate its choices to you while pretending they work for you, and that your ability as an individual to demand other "choices" is incredibly limited. It's fantasy. Like, are you seriously going to tell me that the health care crisis in the US doesn't exist because of the might of an industry that has willfully gone unchecked?

0
2020-05-01 06:27:29pm (post #8153)

phsc

re: 8150

You have 4 votes, one is by yourself so we take that out because you don't have a brain, another is by tman who also has no brain, fleetingpetals seems to have no brain and just defend you, very like what straw said, about choosing sides and not truth.
Then there is my vote and my comment (my comment being liked by fg and Thyssen).

I think it's just that most people don't seem to bother voting on your poll, and even if the majority of people did, it does not make it right, retard, thats an appeal to popularity, and the other part of your "argument" is an ad hominem, you cannot argue so you keep doing that, it's funny.

0
2020-05-01 06:12:49pm (post #8152)

strawberry crisis enfp 7

re: 8148

"STRAW MAKE SO YOU CAN UNLIKE COMMENTS PLEASE"
You can now!

1
2020-05-01 06:10:59pm (post #8151)

Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE

re: 8149

My functions are clear to everyone besides you, you poor fool. I know what I meant, you don't have to know what I meant.

0
2020-05-01 06:01:28pm (post #8150)

phsc

re: 8147

"I don't like showing others that I'm wrong because I do not have arguments"
Typical Jacobus, still waiting for you to explain the function magic INFJ argument and why my ISFP vote is wrong, but wait, you can't!
It is not odd, it is what you said, your own words, you say that now but within such context there is no evidence for that, which I believe is just you trying to adapt what you said so it looks less ridiculous.

0
2020-05-01 05:50:39pm (post #8149)

phsc

re: 8144

STRAW MAKE SO YOU CAN UNLIKE COMMENTS PLEASE

It is not overly optimistic, it is the realistic view within the set of theories I believe in, and it is not optimistic because it has a lot of negative potential too, and this is what most transhumanists believe, not that it will solve all problems but that "with great power comes great responsibility" kind of way.

0
2020-05-01 05:45:59pm (post #8148)

Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE

re: 8140

I don't particularly care about the rest of that (I don't like explaining myself and usually don't see a point), but I will say that your focus on a joke post from a year ago - in which I deliberately exaggerated my worst qualities and now don't feel is representative of me even in an ironic manner - is rather odd.

1
2020-05-01 05:44:56pm (post #8147)

phsc

re: 8145

Reddit is terrible for discussion for the vast majority of time, but some subs are really good for discussion, the best example is r/brasilivre (r/brasil is a very left-wing sub that bans people for simply being right wing) so some people decided to reate r/brasilivre which translates to/freebrazil which is an actual open discussion with minimum morality must be followed-like rules where there is actual discussion, but that is very rare to see and it happens because people who want freedom of speech go there.

Also Google and social media give what people want, it is not like they make people use them without people wanting to use them, I see no problem in that, it is not what I want (social media, Google is actually still useful) but if I did not want to use Google I'd look for another service, just because few companies give a great service it does not mean it is wrong or bad? it does centralize it but it does not mean that competition will not exist in the future, just look at the history of internet and check for how many companies went to shit, Apple and Google and Microsoft started out of nowhere at some point. And like my mom does not need to use Tor as much as I do not need to use Facebook, people do nto seem to understand how easy it is for corporations, and even governments, to lose all their power, it is very easy, it is like chess, one wrong move and you lose all of your advantage.

You really do not understand my points either because I agree with the "concentrated power" part, it's just that some things are really, really hard to change.

About it's type, what is typing Transhumanism? typing those most likely to agree with it? those most likely to work/develop it? the ideology itself in a very tman way? this is why I think ideology polls are flipside material, and I think there are some image problems that transhumanism can generate, I also think transhumanism if we take it at a very lower level, like basically the current level, is not really a thing 3s have interest in because at least yet there are no real uses, while in fiction and other things 5s also work on it, like I mentioned the majority of transhumanist authors being 5 and all.

0
2020-05-01 05:41:38pm (post #8146)

strawberry crisis enfp 7

re: 8142

> like go on basically any place on reddit that is not a complete bubble where people get banned if they disagree

Reddit is probably among the worst sites for real discussion but I don't really want to get into it. I see typology communities just as "not exempt from the rule."

> What you say about the internet is a thing I disagree tho, that is what the very popular internet is, you can use DuckDuckGo, Tor, whatever, maybe even create your own stuff, and social media is pretty easy to escape, I can use myself as an example, the only one I have (other than to quickly register/log-in some websites with like Facebook or Twitter which sometimes are required) is LinkedIn for obvious reasons.

No, you're ignoring the larger dynamic here, which is what I'm pointing at. You as an individual may be able to escape, but what are the people doing? Where does the average person go when they're on the Internet? And don't forget how the culture web can still wrap you into those things even if you personally don't interact with social media...

And yes, I'm not going to respond to the section about evil corporations because I fundamentally don't think you understand what my argument is and I frankly don't think you'll come to understand it if we spent days going back and forth on it. But the point isn't "evil corporations"—it's "concentrated power and systems that support a hierarchy of power that concentrates power are unjust and must be reevaluated."

> I also think that for short-term transhumanism 3w4 makes sense and 3w4s are also likely to like it but the more long-term oriented and like the theory behind such ideas and like singularity, reductionism, artificial inteligence […]

While the underlying "theory" or whatever works as the backbone for transhumanism may be 5, the idea of working toward the goal of Technological Progress through human-machine integration falls in line with the higher-and-higher mechanism of type 3. If the meaning is 3 but may use 5 means to get there, I still see it as 3.

1
2020-05-01 04:39:31pm (post #8145)

Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI

re: 8138

I thought what I meant by "overly optimistic" would be obvious. You said it yourself
"it is probably the idea with the most potential out of all ideas, this and machine learning are the human ideas that have the most potential I believe, both negative and positive."
I agree wholeheartedly. I only think that people tend to either focus on one extreme to the exclusion of the other, ethier claiming transhumanism will solve all our ill's while ignoring the thousands of ways it could go wrong, or else condemning it as a new form of black magic, and claiming to know with certainty that it will bring the end of days.

0
2020-05-01 04:37:26pm (post #8144)

phsc

I also think that for short-term transhumanism 3w4 makes sense and 3w4s are also likely to like it but the more long-term oriented and like the theory behind such ideas and like singularity, reductionism, artificial inteligence, automation, the general heavy focus on technology, those who are interested in working with such areas and also theories related like economics and order, makes me think 5 fits better as a whole, also most of the authors correlated with transhumanism are probably 5s, and I also believe the 6 wing really fits here too.

0
2020-05-01 04:12:27pm (post #8143)

phsc

re: 8141

What you said is true but I've seen this happens much more in typology communities than other communities, like go on basically any place on reddit that is not a complete bubble where people get banned if they disagree (like r/latestagecapitalism), people can at least explain why to some extent, but typology, it is funny because if you go to personalitydatabase people literally... do not explain anything in their comments where they say they are explaining their votes! and that also goes to other things from that and that also affects r/mbti and like personality cafe and all, it is a very internet thing but typology takes it to a higher level, some other communities do not even require you to argue or explain things like some stuff that is about purely opinions online which is why I do not have as much of a problem with it, like when people talk about games or music or whatever.

What you say about the internet is a thing I disagree tho, that is what the very popular internet is, you can use DuckDuckGo, Tor, whatever, maybe even create your own stuff, and social media is pretty easy to escape, I can use myself as an example, the only one I have (other than to quickly register/log-in some websites with like Facebook or Twitter which sometimes are required) is LinkedIn for obvious reasons.

"while turning a blind eye to the consequences of yearning for and working toward advancing along a path that we—humanity as a whole—aren't ready for and never will be unless lucidity begins to pervade society and we tackle ethical problems rooted in things like corporations abusing their ability to access this technology & bend it to their will, or technology limiting people's freedom to exist in a world not bound by technology growing faster than we can keep up with it (as a response)."
There is much more to this than corporations being evil! This would be too long and I believe I did explain a bit of this to you in a discussion we had in Discord some months ago about free markets but I would not say corporations are the real problem here! as weird as it might look, but it really goes to "why can corporations do that?" and "why are there few corporations?" and as much as it can have a lot of negative results, some of the positive results can actually fight the negative results, like the cost of information getting smaller and smaller and the distribution getting better and better in correlation with some transhumanist technologies, it is not ignoring such issue, I believe a lot of people do, but the issues might actually be solvable in other ways than believing humanity itself can work within ethics! Also casual reminder we do not really require corporations for this to happen because the government can use develop such technologies and then the world goes to Akira instead of Blade Runner!

0
2020-05-01 04:01:33pm (post #8142)

strawberry crisis enfp 7

re: 8138

> There is a thing I really love about discussion in this website - and other typology websites as well - which is that PEOPLE DO NOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY BELIEVE IN THINGS, they just say the things they believe in:

It's more of a Modern Internet phenomenon than anything else. Online interaction in this era has largely become about distinguishing ourselves on the basis of our supposedly rudimentary values for the sake of finding "our people" or "our side." It doesn't seem to matter why we choose the "side" we do, but that we are on that side. It's a way of communicating that allows us to understand things only in black, white, and a little bit of gray: "This is a good, bad, neutral, sort of okay, fine, etc. opinion." I am so not a fan. It's exactly what creates that dynamic in which motives become obfuscated and individual voices and the nuance they bring die out as they come to align with and serve a group-driven agenda that lacks the sanity necessary to keep its own power in check.

But there is a lot more to this than just the poor communication of values & what drive them... because ultimately this mode of interaction only works as a way to find people with your values rather than a way to show people your values. But it should make intuitive sense why the Internet propagates this kind of behavior: people don't know each other online. It's why you'll notice people talking to one another personally (usually over a long period of time) won't do this kind of thing (but also—talking one-on-one effectively forces elaboration anyway).

I also wonder how social media ties into it. The Internet at this point essentially is just Google and social media, which is driven by presenting-the-sides-I-belong-to communication and disseminates this attitude on a culture-sized scale. It's undoubtedly a big influence that's made it to typology websites, but I think the bigger story here is simply how much influence social media companies have as a result of having gamified human interaction in this way.

In this vein of things, ideas like transhumanism all too much represent the "constant growth" mindset that can be associated with technological progress and its advocates... while turning a blind eye to the consequences of yearning for and working toward advancing along a path that we—humanity as a whole—aren't ready for and never will be unless lucidity begins to pervade society and we tackle ethical problems rooted in things like corporations abusing their ability to access this technology & bend it to their will, or technology limiting people's freedom to exist in a world not bound by technology growing faster than we can keep up with it (as a response). When people put their faith into ideas like this, they ignore the real world that will eventually have to come and act as its backdrop and context, and within it, there's absolutely no way that it could work without resembling the same evil that has the power to create the culture that drives why the heck people don't seem to like explaining why they believe in things!

0
2020-05-01 03:35:41pm (post #8141)

phsc

re: 8139

"Transhumanism is nothing but an inverse Gnosticism in which the preservation and enhancement of matter is valued over life itself."
This might be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this website, the non sequitur is so fucking obvious, this is just so stupid like, literally, you say a thing and the next does not follow.

"It's fundamentally opposed to freedom of will and human dignity."
Free will does not exist in the way it is most commonly defined, it is not opposed to it still and it does not go agaisn't human dignity, maybe agaisn't your own opinion of it, which then, I really could not care less about.

"The slavish, cowardly desire to create abominations in order to add a few years to the lifespan or whatever would be terrifying if it was not also ridiculous."
>that moment when you want to extend your fucking life, everything you literally have been able to do was because of such thing, why would you ever want to extend it, slave?
It is also not slavish because... you agree with it! shows how smart you are, terrifying and ridiculous are one's own completely subjective opinions so I do not care about what you think but this shows how limited your view of it is, since if you are talking about the appearance of things, there is a demand for one to look "good" so with time technology would develop to solve such issues if there was a need for it.

"I shall never forfeit my humanity for bondage to dead matter and I look down upon anyone who would consider such a thing."
You are a genius.

I like how you did not explain why it is inverse Gnoticism, why the presevation and enhancement of matter is valued OVER life itself (when one of the core goals can be to INCREASE life itself!), why it is opposed to free will, why it is opposed to human dignity, why it is slavish, why it is a thing foor wards, why adding years to one's lifespan is terrying and ridiculous, and... why, like, just why.

But then, you are Jacobus, the second comment from your poll says it all,:
"Hi, I'm Jacobus. I don't work; I have a mother complex; I have some mood disorder that I can't quite pin down but wouldn't get treated anyway; I want to be a writer, actor, director, musician, philosopher, political theorist, and painter all at once; I've been trying to give myself visions; and I want to die before 30, or at least 40, depending on how much I get accomplished."
Yeah, those who believe in transhumanism are the ridiculous ones, not the ones who want to die at 30 or 40 for no reason and cannot follow reason at all, the best part is that no matter what your opinion is, transhumanism is going to happen, thank you for entertaining me with your stupidity once again, I also feel good being looked down by someone as disgusting and stupid as you.

0
2020-05-01 03:02:25pm (post #8140)

Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE

Transhumanism is nothing but an inverse Gnosticism in which the preservation and enhancement of matter is valued over life itself. It's fundamentally opposed to freedom of will and human dignity. The slavish, cowardly desire to create abominations in order to add a few years to the lifespan or whatever would be terrifying if it was not also ridiculous. I shall never forfeit my humanity for bondage to dead matter and I look down upon anyone who would consider such a thing.

4
2020-05-01 02:21:29pm (post #8139)

phsc

There is a thing I really love about discussion in this website - and other typology websites as well - which is that PEOPLE DO NOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY BELIEVE IN THINGS, they just say the things they believe in:
>why is transhumanism evil?
>why are it's followers optimistic and why are it's ideas more modest than it's advocates are inclined to think?
It does not have "some" potential, it is probably the idea with the most potential out of all ideas, this and machine learning are the human ideas that have the most potential I believe, both negative and positive, the combination of the two ideas is a concept I actually think I genuinely love, and how it all fits my other beliefs makes such "optimism" much closer to reality than you might think.

0
2020-05-01 02:00:36pm (post #8138)

Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI

re: 8134

It's followers are a little overly optimistic for sure. But the ideas themselves have some potential, one simply has to be realistic about the dangers as well as the benefits, which are likely much more modest then it's advocates are inclined to think.

1
2020-05-01 11:54:51am (post #8135)

Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE

evil

3
2020-05-01 10:37:39am (post #8134)

*related entries*
Pessimism Philosophy
Metaphysics Philosophy
Transcendental Idealism Philosophy
Otto Weininger Philosophy
Stoic Philosophy
Self-Control Philosophy
Analytic Philosophy Philosophy
C
Praying Mantis Insects
Sergey Brin computer scientist
Mark Zuckerberg Facebook
Linus Pauling Chemist