I think you hit the nail on the head there. A bit of psychology 101 will take you farther than any mastery of logic. That's why people say you have to "understand" power in order to attain power.
[PUG] RANT: Reality has a Liberal bias...
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
I think you hit the nail on the head there. A bit of psychology 101 will take you farther than any mastery of logic. That's why people say you have to "understand" power in order to attain power.
You and I need to have a discussion about this sometime. I 100% agree. Although I somehow doubt you'd be a fan of Kierkegaard...
More seriously: get involved with people that are reasonable. You'll be MUCH happier. If you are open to changing your opinion, you'll learn from them, and because they are reasonable, they'll be inclined to listen to your ideas.
I've chosen "high" academia for myself, even though they aren't perfect I'm sure it takes at least some maturity to make it to places like MIT or Harvard. The trick is to get involved with people trying to improve things that you want to improve too, while just being a slightly more developed type. Our little "MBTI cult" up here in Alaska has elements of it: we're all very interested in development, and are constantly seeking it, and although we all have very different goals for our lives, we all seek to improve the world in some way.
"It is pointless to try to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into in the first place." -Jonathan Swift
I've been having to learn this lesson myself. I know it is hard to do it, and maybe sounds a little heartless, but abandon the thoughtless. Abandon them and don't look back. Be there for when they are ready (and they'll seek when they are), but those who are not ready are impossible. Just forget them.
The hard part, I know, is that the thoughtless get into our society, government, etc, and try to push on us. Don't worry about it, just do the best you can and be dedicated to being awesome. Separate yourself from the thoughtless as much as you can: just kindly decline to be a part of them. They'll call you a snob, they'll try to bring you back down to them, but just go about your business. Be kind, but just don't engage.
This attitude has worked wonders in my life. At my job here, only my direct supervisor even knows my name. I do good work, but I don't get bothered with the horrible gossip, close-minded (and honestly stupid) conversations about how x people with different points of view are y, and the boring boring boring conversations about clothing and what I ate for supper last night. I just put in earplugs, and refuse to participate.
Wait, you are saying the adults you know actually believe in those stories? Where the hell did you grow up? Certainly wasn't around here where the majority of the people actually don't believe in any of that crap. No wonder you are so insanely offensive towards Christianity, if you actually grew up around adults believing in this stuff, I think it would have bent me in a weird way too.
Then believe what you want to believe, discussion of topics such as religion can be accepted as long as it's on a mature standard, once individuals start getting passionate about their views is when the conflict initiates. You have your own views and opinions and if others are not willing to compromise that does not give you the right to change their ways of thinking, the smart thing to do would have been to end the discussion. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean their wrong, we all have our different opinions and beliefs, and in reality truth is relative so there's nothing absolute. We are no one to judge the views of others.
So we don't have the right to try to educate a racist? We should just accept their way of thinking?
What makes people wrong is when they hold a belief that a) does not conform to reality. What makes people "unjustified" (or "thoughtless") in their belief is when they don't have enough evidence or knowledge to warrant believing it.
And as we've discussed in many many threads, there are things that are absolute: objectively true. If you say "there is nothing that is absolutely or objectively true" then you contradict yourself, because if that statement was true, it would be absolutely/universally/objectively true, and so contradict itself.
Because there is an objective truth, we try to find what facts fit into that truth. When someone holds a belief opposite of that, or in opposition to the most reliable and effective methods to determine objective truth, we say they are just plain wrong or thoughtless, respectively.
Knowing this, and combining it with a true desire to enlighten, educate, and help the minds of others develop, and it becomes a much more complicated issue then just, "You have no right to try to change others." It almost becomes a duty to try.
I know where Satya is, I was just there not long ago. I still have much of that desire in me. The best solution I've found is to just abandon the thoughtless to their self-chosen fate, but be there for when they are ready. Surround yourself with those that are ready/have already traversed. That's all you can really do.
I don't have a problem with you if your racist nor do I respect you as long as you keep it to your self, I know there a certain individuals who are so close-minded they will never change such erroneous views, now the problem starts when you call it out or act in a manner that's disrespectful,unethical to another individual and that's what I been noticing here, multiple threads attacking an individual in a way to make them look ignorant or insulting them when they are just sharing thoughts. I do not agree with racism and will explain my views to the other person but I would not impose them and forced them to think a certain way. I wish there was a way I could change everything I consider negative(such as racism)unfortunately I can't since we are all human and what I might consider negative might not be negative to them, so best thing to do is ignore such people, now if they are causing harm then legal actions should be taken.
Last edited:
If you are seeing that, then you really should send an administrator the links to the particular posts.
Not to be rude Satya, I think your posts are very bright and well developed. I did had a problem with the ''ask a christian thread''. I, myself was questioning Chris' personal beliefs however, I think I manage to keep my cool throughout the whole discussion and not really hurt him in any way. The way you formulated your posts made them seem very cynical, you were sort of suffocating him and the thread turn out to be ''attack a christian'' rather than just ''ask a christian''. The thread was made to ask questions regarding Christianity not to attack a member's way of thinking whether you agree with him or not.
There is a difference between respect and dignity. Dignity is something given to every person as it is their right to have it.
I do have the right to not respect someone, in contrast to dignity. Respect is earned through some kind of effort. Thoughtful, reasonable people make an effort to understand, and so I respect them for that. I don't respect the thoughtless or unreasonable because they don't make effort for it.
Now I know the "diplomatic intelligence" of an NF will want to instantly reject this. You have an inborn need to see people get along. However, as an NT, I have an inborn need to perfect/better systems. I see this effort on a very strategic layer. The end goal is a thoughtful society (and by definition this means people getting along much better too). We make the effort to force reasonableness...which is futile but at the same time, it has the goal in mind.
It really is the number one crisis of human society: lack of thoughtfulness. Efforts to change it on a small, personal level have been fruitless, and trying to "market" thoughtfulness is a contradiction in terms. It's just a frustrating endeavor, but honestly, it gets my respect.
I'm sorry that it isn't fully conducive to your NF diplomatic sensibilities. I understand you and I understand why you are opposed to "attacks" on other people. But try to understand back: they're not attacks, they're just attempts to change the level of thoughtfulness; or, at worst, they're expressions of frustration at the lack thereof.
Now, don't get me wrong, taking out frustration is not the way to go. I've done it recently and I apologize for my behavior. But, I really, deeply maintain that the right to "engage" someone in an attempt to enlighten or otherwise make them more thoughtful is not in any way unethical. If the person does not wish to be questioned, they need to make that wish clear at the time it is happening. It is not a crime to think someone is wrong, but if they don't want your doubts, then they need to say so and go to a PAX thread.
I'm very sorry Satya. I can tell you get very frustrated with that.
You must remember though, that Shai said, it isn't just religious people, and not all religious people are dimwits. I go to a Catholic School, and honestly, you'd be pretty surprise how much the children's beliefs could differ from the parents. I wouldn't right out this next general completely. But maybe that's because my table is the liberal table...but still! Even all the very conservative people at my school have no qualms against gay marriage. I know that's not the only thing to which you are referring. Social reform is good in general, but frankly, some people like the system. And why not? If the system serves you, why go changing it? (I'm not saying I support this by the way)
And on kind of a side note...people that are so easily influenced, that follow the "script" that you mentioned, are the exact type of people that worry me, because it is one of my worst nightmares to be convicted of I crime that I didn't commit. Lawyers that want to win their case often use a lot of pathos, emotional words, and techniques to influence the jury and audience. Frankly, if I get a dumb jury, which is entirely possible, I could be screwed!
Oh and carry on my wayward son. (Idk my friends made me listen to that today and it seems appropriate)
You must remember though, that Shai said, it isn't just religious people, and not all religious people are dimwits. I go to a Catholic School, and honestly, you'd be pretty surprise how much the children's beliefs could differ from the parents. I wouldn't right out this next general completely. But maybe that's because my table is the liberal table...but still! Even all the very conservative people at my school have no qualms against gay marriage. I know that's not the only thing to which you are referring. Social reform is good in general, but frankly, some people like the system. And why not? If the system serves you, why go changing it? (I'm not saying I support this by the way)
And on kind of a side note...people that are so easily influenced, that follow the "script" that you mentioned, are the exact type of people that worry me, because it is one of my worst nightmares to be convicted of I crime that I didn't commit. Lawyers that want to win their case often use a lot of pathos, emotional words, and techniques to influence the jury and audience. Frankly, if I get a dumb jury, which is entirely possible, I could be screwed!
Oh and carry on my wayward son. (Idk my friends made me listen to that today and it seems appropriate)
Last edited:
Agreed. A lot of people just can't be won over in such a way.
Reminds me of the "Belief" by John Mayer.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Think about this:
If nothing had even a slight bias to it, everything, everyone, and every event would more or less be the same.
If nothing had even a slight bias to it, everything, everyone, and every event would more or less be the same.
What about the difference in experiences and knowledge? I think having the same bias would only give us the same starting point, but our different experiences would give us different opinions and points of view still.
Last edited:
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
A point if view is a form of bias. You are only unbais unless you use imperical evidence that is completely black and white on how things are, and you also can't use your past exerperiences. Everything has to be objective totally in every way to be unbias. While there might be different conclusions when being totally unbias, everthing would have flatlined to a great degree at the very least.
What about when your past experiences include different pieces of empirical data? I mean, I'm studying biological psychology right now, and (I would imagine) you have never studied it. However, you have studied a related field: organic chemistry. I have never studied that. Both are based on empirical data, but if we come together and try to put our data into a philosophical discussion, we are likely to reach very different conclusions.
Ok, I can run with this. In certain areas bias is appropriate (what food do you want to eat?). I think the contention is mostly in those areas where bias is inappropriate, or at least undesirable. Religion and politics, specifically, are known to be horribly guilty of inserting extreme amounts of bias where it is inappropriate. I mean, Fox News' "coverage" of President Obama of late is a perfect example. It is desirable for the news to present an unbiased, objective point of view. Fox has an agenda though, and is sadly one big editorial channel that disguises itself as being "news information you need to know!"
So I guess that's the problem: bias where it is undesirable.
You may be caught in one of the great phenomena of our time (as am I in some way), the tragic disconnect of higher religious thought within Christianity....an articulation that moves beyond the mythic and magical which many of us grew up with, often left to think that is all there was. It is an odd quirk of history and we are poorer for it. There are people out there identifying and trying to address this, but it will be a long road given the culture.
Another thought. Often reality is not what fails us...it is our assumptions about reality that do. Christianity does not respond to rational logic alone...it'd be like telling a scientist to have accept a theory solely on the basis of faith. The two worlds approach reality from opposite perspectives/directions....we need to evolve to the point that we see that neither are "wrong" and both have value. Until we do, we are children.
Another thought. Often reality is not what fails us...it is our assumptions about reality that do. Christianity does not respond to rational logic alone...it'd be like telling a scientist to have accept a theory solely on the basis of faith. The two worlds approach reality from opposite perspectives/directions....we need to evolve to the point that we see that neither are "wrong" and both have value. Until we do, we are children.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Hmm, ok you do have a point there. If you don't experience it all, you don't know all the information out there. However if you put two and two together, things will eventually even out and a common ground will be found.
Yes this is true. The big problem is, do people truly want to be unbias (I mean, totally, 100% unbias). If one does become totally unbias, they are in essence letting go of part of there identitiy, and no one on this earth wants to do that. While yes the world would be a better place in a lot of respects if everyone were totally unbias. Yet, the world would be much more boring. Most passion would be lost, peoples identities would be lost, behavior would be extremely altered. In reality, it is highly undeseriable to be unbiased on an inner individual level.