Are some religions just memetic control mechanisms?
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Arbygil is right, this is very similar to stuff that has been debated in the past. Look up most of the posts by Duty. I have gotten in several (rather pissed off) arguments with him. He is also an INTP.
Uuummmmm, yeah except there are quite a few INFJs and NFs dissenting from religion and the utility of memes...
So it's easy to enough to recklessly invalidate the concepts and definitions held close to those using Ti for you "INFJ representatives". Do you want to give a crack at any of my ideas or any of the other NFs' and INFJs' ideas? Do you think you are defending against something?
So it's easy to enough to recklessly invalidate the concepts and definitions held close to those using Ti for you "INFJ representatives". Do you want to give a crack at any of my ideas or any of the other NFs' and INFJs' ideas? Do you think you are defending against something?
Last edited:
It's just a different way of presenting the information, Hinsoog. INFs usually bring feelings into it, while INTs generally won't. So even if INFs disagree on a religious perspective we'll still listen and think about what someone has said, and we may incorporate those other ideas into our model of what "is" and "isn't" for us. They're sharing discussions over debate. The INT usually approaches topics like this as a debate, and they're aiming to win. We don't see it as a debate; we see it more as an exchange of ideas.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
This is so so so true, and it has to be the root to why discussion topics like this go nowhere fast when an INT chimes in. You nailed it!
The next post will be from some INT who will say something like this:
I don't belive in that MBTI stuff, it's just a way to avoid discussion based on objective facts.
(here comes few INT links to some websites that tell how wrong MBTI is...
Why? The accuracy isn't that bad, and the methods prevent the articles from maintaining heavy biases. I consider Wikipedia one of the best sources for mainstream explanations of terms, and the "burden of proof" is a classic example. Did you object to anything specific that you thought was wrong with the article, besides your dislike for the source?
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Wikipedia is good for getting an outline or a definition of an idea or concept. However, it's not really the best for backing up an argument beyond that outline; if you want to support your argument as opposed to just making certain parts of it understood, wikipedia is probably not the best route.
Last edited:
I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a reputable source. Anyone can edit or change the source material in Wikipedia, so unless you read the follow up information you have no way of judging if the source is reputable or not. You're receiving third or fourth party source material, and that's not considered reputable data in a thesis.
Use Wikipedia as a guide, but find the original source material to quote. That's the only way you'll know if the information is correct or not.
*So says the Library Science student*
Use Wikipedia as a guide, but find the original source material to quote. That's the only way you'll know if the information is correct or not.
*So says the Library Science student*
This is an interesting topic, and I'll have to come back later to read through it in more detail. Is this based on Richard Dawkin's ideas about religion?
There are systems of ideas in religion, politics, etc. that create a hedge around thoughts. The use of fear and reward can create boundaries on thought which can be a problem. I have heard people presenting religion as a disease that is going to destroy mankind which can also be taken to this same place of fear based reasoning. There are fundamental problems with many religions and how it affects reasoning, but there is also a tendency to oversimplify what is going on with people and their relationship to religion. I've experienced having my thoughts hedged in by religion and found my way out and so have some thoughts about the process, but the topic is so enormous and complex that I have not yet formed a big picture philosophy about it. I look forward to reading the thread in more depth.
There are systems of ideas in religion, politics, etc. that create a hedge around thoughts. The use of fear and reward can create boundaries on thought which can be a problem. I have heard people presenting religion as a disease that is going to destroy mankind which can also be taken to this same place of fear based reasoning. There are fundamental problems with many religions and how it affects reasoning, but there is also a tendency to oversimplify what is going on with people and their relationship to religion. I've experienced having my thoughts hedged in by religion and found my way out and so have some thoughts about the process, but the topic is so enormous and complex that I have not yet formed a big picture philosophy about it. I look forward to reading the thread in more depth.
Last edited:
Julia, I like your analogy regarding the "hedge around thoughts", and your carefully-chosen words when using it. I also like the analogy of placing God in a box, or should I say of not being able to place God in a box. I, too, look forward to having the time to read through this again.
I also do not want any int folk getting sidetracked by their feelings. Trying to better understand the type people one is discussing things with is good in these conditions.
I also do not want any int folk getting sidetracked by their feelings. Trying to better understand the type people one is discussing things with is good in these conditions.
You would be all right with the casual use that is most often seen on the forums, then.
The secondhand nature of the information in Wikipedia justifies its exclusion from academic circles. I would use for research, but only as a place to find large compilations of sources on the topic, not as an authoritative source in and of itself.
However, I prefer to use it in internet discussions, because they are notorious for including heavily biased sources. If I quote directly from the original, I will often have people trying to find problems with that source (e.g., "I'll bet that professor is a liberal!"), while they tend to accept Wikipedia quotes as more authoritative because they are not from right or left-wing blogs and the like. There actually is some truth to that preference: Wikipedia is one of the few places where bias is unsustainable. Even though biased sources can be quoted there, the quotes will be scrutinized and often removed by those who disagree with them. So if you quote a source as it appears in Wikipedia, you've already demonstrated to an extent that it is a valid one, simply because it has been accepted by a diverse group of editors.
We-ell, I think it's wishful thinking to believe that bloggers and scholars will consistently update the data and catch perceived errors, but I know what you're saying. It's a nice concept, but it's less believable. And to be honest, if we're really looking, there's no such thing as a non-biased account. We can try and be as honest as we can, but everyone will put a biased spin on things.
All we do to prove a point is to find someone who agrees with our way of thinking. That happens in scholarly research papers, too. I won't lie; I use Wikipedia as a quick source. But I also click on the links to see where the data comes from. I tend to use government sources or news articles rather than someone's blog account.
On the other hand...theory conspirators are everywhere.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to find a heavily biased and fabricated article on Wiki; I mean, most current events articles are pretty messy for the first several days, with political agendas driving most of the edits. But consequently those articles receive more attention from the fact checkers, and balance out and calm down after awhile. I look at it as a source for informal peer reviews, and of any source on the internet, a Wiki article is one of the least likely to be bogus. Government publications and certain news sources are good, but do not cover a large percentage of the topics. (Often you have to purchase news articles that are more than a few years old.)
I'll give you the informal peer reviews, but I'm biased on Wikipedia - mostly because it's not the same source editing the information, and because when I pull from a source, I don't want the source material to change if I need to refer to it a few days later.
Wikipedia is good for short term, quickie use. But if you really want a source that won't change its mind on a daily (or hourly) basis, it's best not to use it.
As for not finding recent information or finding source material, well...it depends on how well you're trained when it comes to finding research material. I'm two courses shy of becoming a "full fledged" librarian (I'm fighting it, but if I decide to I'm there) so I know where to find stuff. (EbscoHost is my guru
).