Re: Intuit & Study (was: Myers-Briggs)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 12:35 PM Friday 5/12/2006, Deborah Harrell wrote:

> Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Real-world application: consumer manipulation.

> This is from a PBS Frontline interview with market
> researcher Clotaire Rapaille; he isn't correct about
> the cortex 'being in place after age 7' --
> but his views on the emotional out-weighing
> the rational in everyday life I think are correct.
> Unless one is aware of that, and tries to compensate

> for it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/rapaille.html


> "...How can I decode this kind of behavior which is
> not a word? My theory is very simple: The reptilian
> always
> wins. I don't care what you're going to tell me
> intellectually. I don't care. Give me the reptilian.
> Why? Because the reptilian always wins..."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/themes/magic.html
OTOH, Bob Garfield thinks that's bunk:

"...Well, OK, fine. Sometimes you can make emotional
connections. AT&T has done it. Hallmark has done it.
Coca-Cola has done it. But mostly the people who have
tried to make emotional connections with consumers
over the years, by far, the vast, vast majority have
failed.

Since time immemorial, advertising agencies have been
trying to create emotional reactions to goods and
services. But there is no magic string for the puppet;
there is no Svengali spell; there's no poison gas;
there's no magic wand. Advertising works, and
sometimes good advertising campaigns work, especially,
but they are not controlling your mind, they're not
controlling your heart, and they're not controlling
your glands. What they are doing mostly is failing
again and again and again..."



Is it possible that the secret is to have a good product, and in many 
cases be the first one to meet the need which the product serves, 
rather that looking for that magic spell in advertising?



--Ronn!  :)

"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country 
and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER 
GOD.  Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that 
would be eliminated from schools too?"

   -- Red Skelton

(Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.)




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Intuit & Study (was: Myers-Briggs)

[Deborah Harrell]

> Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Real-world application: consumer manipulation.

> This is from a PBS Frontline interview with market
> researcher Clotaire Rapaille; he isn't correct about
> the cortex 'being in place after age 7' --
> but his views on the emotional out-weighing
> the rational in everyday life I think are correct. 
> Unless one is aware of that, and tries to compensate

> for it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/rapaille.html


> "...How can I decode this kind of behavior which is
> not a word? My theory is very simple: The reptilian
> always
> wins. I don't care what you're going to tell me
> intellectually. I don't care. Give me the reptilian.
> Why? Because the reptilian always wins..."
 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/themes/magic.html
OTOH, Bob Garfield thinks that's bunk:

"...Well, OK, fine. Sometimes you can make emotional
connections. AT&T has done it. Hallmark has done it.
Coca-Cola has done it. But mostly the people who have
tried to make emotional connections with consumers
over the years, by far, the vast, vast majority have
failed.

Since time immemorial, advertising agencies have been
trying to create emotional reactions to goods and
services. But there is no magic string for the puppet;
there is no Svengali spell; there's no poison gas;
there's no magic wand. Advertising works, and
sometimes good advertising campaigns work, especially,
but they are not controlling your mind, they're not
controlling your heart, and they're not controlling
your glands. What they are doing mostly is failing
again and again and again..."

Buying a Hummer never was and never will be rational. 
Unless the world of Mad Max manifests, and there'd
better be an oil refinery with full reserves nearby.

Wearing high heels is irrational, as is having a
closet full of shoes.  Yet even I enjoy those DSW
commercials - "After a long winter, the female emerges
to hunt for her prey..."

Debbi
whose only shoe purchases in the past year have been
for or about horses...   :-) 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Intuit & Study (was: Myers-Briggs)

[Deborah Harrell]

With a large dollop of market/economics thrown in:

> Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> > ...I think the discussion of intuitive vs.
> scientific
> > thinking misses how science actually works...

> > IMHO, intuition works best when combined with
> rigor.
> >  In science at least,
> > one can make an intuitive leap to get to the idea,
> > but one is responsible
> > for going back and connecting the dots to make
> > sure one's intuition is correct...
 
> I had written:
> "...from my observations & experience
>  a lot of "intuition" is actually based on 
> essentially sub-conscious
> integration of observations with prior knowledge... 

Real-world application: consumer manipulation.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/rapaille.html
This is from a PBS Frontline interview with market
researcher Clotaire Rapaille; he isn't correct about
the cortex 'being in place after age 7' - it is
functioning before we speak, frex Ronn!'s
bowl-dropping toddler, and we know that the last bit
of major pruning and refinement occur at ~ age 21
(although tiny changes continue probably until death)
- but his views on the emotional out-weighing the
rational in everyday life I think are correct.  Unless
one is aware of that, and tries to compensate for it.

"...And so I was lecturing at Geneva University, and
one of my students asked his father to come to my
lecture. And at the end of the lecture the father told
me, "You know, doctor, I have a client for you." And I
said, "Is it a little boy, little girl, doesn't
speak?" [He said], "No, no, this is Nestlé." And I was
very surprised. I say: "Nestlé? What can I do for
Nestlé?" "Well, we try to sell instant coffee to the
Japanese, and obviously we might have the wrong code,
because we're not very successful." Today, more than
30 years later, it sounds obvious, but at the time
they were trying to get Japanese people to switch from
tea to coffee. And of course when you know that
there's a very strong imprint of tea in Japan -- it's
almost a religious dimension there -- you cannot
really have a strategy to get them switch from tea to
coffee...

...the Japanese don't have a first imprint of coffee.
What first imprint they have is tea. And so when you
go into this category, in what we call taxonomy,
mental taxonomy, it's like a mental category they
have, and you cannot compete with this category. So
you have to create the category. And so we started,
for example, with a dessert for children with a taste
of coffee. We created an imprint of the taste of
coffee. And then we acknowledge the Japanese want to
do one thing at a time, and the Swiss understood that
very well. They start with this kind of a product.
They start selling coffee, but through dessert, things
that were sweet, get the people accustomed to the
taste of coffee, and after that they followed the
generations. And when they were teenagers they start
selling coffee, and first there was coffee with milk
at the beginning, and then they went to coffee, and
now they have a big market for coffee in Japan...

...Now, my experience is that most of the time, people
have no idea why they're doing what they're doing.
They have no idea, so they're going to try to make up
something that makes sense. Why do you need a Hummer
to go shopping? "Well, you see, because in case there
is a snowstorm." No. Why [do] you buy four wheel
drive? "Well, you know, in case I need to go
off-road." Well, you live in Manhattan; why do you
need four wheel drive in Manhattan? "Well, you know,
sometime[s] I go out, and I go -- " You don't need to
be a rocket scientist to understand that this is
disconnected. This is nothing to do with what the real
reason is for people to do what they do. So there are
many limits in traditional market research...

...What is it that make[s] the PT Cruiser a reptilian
car? First, the car has a strong identity. What people
told us is that "We're tired of these cars that have
no identity. I have good quality, good gas mileage,
good everything else, but when I see the car from a
distance, I have to wait till the car gets close to
know what it is, and I have to read the name." When
you go to see your mother, she doesn't need to read
your name to know who you are, you see? We want this
reptilian connection. And so this notion of identity,
absolutely key, was very reptilian for a car...

...How can I decode this kind of behavior which is not
a word? My theory is very simple: The reptilian always
wins. I don't care what you're going to tell me
intellectually. I don't care. Give me the reptilian.
Why? Because the reptilian always wins..."

I agree. Unless you're aware of the distinctions,
which allows you to step back mentally and reassess. 
If you can't do that, you don't have nearly as much
control over your thoughts, actions and very life as
you believe.

Debbi
whose reptile is a dragon, limbic system a wild horse,
and cortex a hummingbird

_

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Richard Baker]

Nick said:


There is nothing controversial or questionable about the fact that one
cannot universally disprove the existence of something.  In other  
words,

there are a whole bunch of logicians behind me on this.


To paraphrase Einstein: if I were wrong, all it would take was one.

Rich

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Nick Arnett]

On 5/11/06, Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Nick said:

> Not until you prove that in every part of the universe, mathematics
> operations exactly as it does here.

But mathematics isn't a property of the state or "laws" of the universe.
It isn't physics, but is more akin to logic itself. You might as well
say that I haven't demonstrated that logic works in the same way at all
times and places.



Indeed, I might well have said that in support of this.

There is nothing controversial or questionable about the fact that one
cannot universally disprove the existence of something.  In other words,
there are a whole bunch of logicians behind me on this.  I invite you to
search the net on the subject.  There are many explanations of why it is a
logical fallacy to imagine that you can absolutely prove the universal
non-existence of a thing.

Nick
(offspring of a philosophy prof)

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Richard Baker]

Nick said:

> Not until you prove that in every part of the universe, mathematics
> operations exactly as it does here.

But mathematics isn't a property of the state or "laws" of the universe.
It isn't physics, but is more akin to logic itself. You might as well
say that I haven't demonstrated that logic works in the same way at all
times and places.

Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Nick Arnett]

On 5/11/06, Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Nick said:

> Nope.  I'm talking about the limits of logic.  One cannot prove
> absolute non-existence with logic.  You may infer it all day long,
> but you can't prove it with logic.

I don't see what's wrong with my argument:

- 7 is not an integer multiple of 2.

- Therefore a machine that proves that 7 is an integer multiple of 2 is
logically impossible.

- Therefore the universe contains no such machine.

It seems to me that this very clearly proves the non-existence of
something.



Not until you prove that in every part of the universe, mathematics
operations exactly as it does here.  *Prove* it logically, don't assume,
intuit or infer it.  I think you might have to go visit and check.  Use
additional lifetimes if necessary.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Richard Baker]

Nick said:

> Nope.  I'm talking about the limits of logic.  One cannot prove
> absolute non-existence with logic.  You may infer it all day long,
> but you can't prove it with logic.

I don't see what's wrong with my argument:

- 7 is not an integer multiple of 2.

- Therefore a machine that proves that 7 is an integer multiple of 2 is
logically impossible.

- Therefore the universe contains no such machine.

It seems to me that this very clearly proves the non-existence of something.

Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[PAT MATHEWS]

From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

On 5/11/06, Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Nick said:

> You cannot prove that such a thing does not exist.  Not with logic.

So you're saying that things that are logically impossible can exist?



Fallacy alert! "You cannot prove it (or disprove it) with logic" is NOT the 
same as "It's logically impossible."


Maybe I should dig out my old Philosophy 146 textbook?




Nope.  I'm talking about the limits of logic.  One cannot prove absolute
non-existence with logic.  You may infer it all day long, but you can't
prove it with logic.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Nick Arnett]

On 5/11/06, Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Nick said:

> You cannot prove that such a thing does not exist.  Not with logic.

So you're saying that things that are logically impossible can exist?



Nope.  I'm talking about the limits of logic.  One cannot prove absolute
non-existence with logic.  You may infer it all day long, but you can't
prove it with logic.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Richard Baker]

Nick said:

> You cannot prove that such a thing does not exist.  Not with logic.

So you're saying that things that are logically impossible can exist?

Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Nick Arnett]

On 5/10/06, Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Nick said:

> Eh?  Insistence on the non-existence of God *is* dogma.  Any
> insistence on
> the non-existence of something is dogma.  It has to be, since it
> cannot be
> logically proved.

So if I insist that there exists nowhere in the universe a
calculating machine that can prove that 7 is  an integer multiple of
2...?



You cannot prove that such a thing does not exist.  Not with logic.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 10/05/2006, at 9:15 PM, Richard Baker wrote:


Charlie said:

LOL Atheists (at least in "the West") tend to be far more liberal  
and laissez-faire than the population at large. Welfare state yes,  
police state no.


If you don't want to be in charge of the Atheist Dominion, maybe I  
could be?


Will there be dancing girls?

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Star Trek Personality Tests (was: Myers-Briggs)

[William T Goodall]

On 10 May 2006, at 8:57PM, Deborah Harrell wrote:



I resemble Picard, Crusher, Sisko and/or Vedek Bareil,
with a stong dollop of Troi and Kes - it's interesting
to go back and change a parameter or two, where you
could have gone either way, and see 'the new you.'


Mostly Spock with some Picard and Seven.

I always thought Spock was very illogical when I watched original  
Trek as a kid...


--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

The surprising thing about the Cargo Cult Windows PC is that it works  
as well as a real one.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Star Trek Personality Tests (was: Myers-Briggs)

[Deborah Harrell]

Just for fun, here are some quick (well, some are
shorter than others, and I really hate 'yes or no'
only  choices) tests to take:

http://www.matthewbarr.co.uk/trek/

http://scifi.about.com/library/weekly/aa080201.htm

http://www.blifaloo.com/quizzes/trek/trek_quiz_start.php

http://www.seabreezecomputers.com/startrek/

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2931/personality/

http://www.wischik.com/damon/Texts/myersbriggstrek.html

I resemble Picard, Crusher, Sisko and/or Vedek Bareil,
with a stong dollop of Troi and Kes - it's interesting
to go back and change a parameter or two, where you
could have gone either way, and see 'the new you.'

Debbi
I Refuse The Hint Of Garak! Maru

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Intuit & Study (was: Myers-Briggs)

[Deborah Harrell]

 Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Oh, dear - I didn't think that I'd hit Send twice!
Sorry.

Debbi
Puzzled By Technology Maru

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Intuit & Study (was: Myers-Briggs)

[Deborah Harrell]

I've combined several posts/responses here-

> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

> ...I think the discussion of intuitive vs.
scientific
> thinking misses how science actually works.
> 
> Intuition is an important part of science.  Great
> scientists, such as
> Feynman, had overwhelming intuitive ability. 
> Feynman is legendary for his
> rough guesses being validated by experiments 10-20
> years later.
> 
> But, of course, he also had misses...he tended to
> have several intuitive ideas a day.  Most of them he
> could dismiss himself.
> The rest, he brought up to colleagues, who usually
> found fatal flaws with
> them.  About once a month, they were worth
> publishing.
> 
> In my own case, I have worked very hard developing
> my own intuition.  I have
> a "feel" for the transport of gammas and neutrons. 
> My rough arm waving
> arguments usually get me in the ball park of the
> right answer.
> 
> But, I know that my intuition is not _that_ good... 
> 
> IMHO, intuition works best when combined with rigor.
>  In science at least,
> one can make an intuitive leap to get to the idea,
> but one is responsible
> for going back and connecting the dots to make sure
> one's intuition is correct...

I had written:
"...from my observations & experience
in the medical field, a lot of "intuition" (including
my own) is actually based on essentially sub-conscious
integration of observations with prior knowledge. 
It's sort of like thinking without realizing it; it
seems almost magical at times because one isn't aware
of the processes ongoing, as they occur so swiftly. 
But without a foundation of education, learned
knowledge, and prior experience, 'intuition' is as
likely to be wrong as not."  
 
Our conceptions about intuition appear similar to me;
I think that I came up with the fifty/fifty figure
because in working with human beings, rather than
subatomic particles, our inherent sense of what "we"
do, think and feel is much more likely to be 'in the
ballpark.'

The Fool wrote:
"The claim I'll make about intuition is that sometimes
a portion of the large amount of background processing
that your brain does might slip through the filter
your mind uses, but it is hardly a rational, reasoned,
and scientific process.  And also based much more
around
hardwired instinctual responces that may not be very
good."

But when one is dealing with humans or higher animals,
*reason* and *rationality* apply only infrequently! 
"Gut feelings" _do_ have a basis in the reality of
human behavior; that is why self-defense classes for
women urge that they pay attention to such
'instinctive' reactions.  I know about the medical use
of intuition, but I'll bet that law enforcement folk
find it useful too.

Dan again:
> The distinction that I see is between linear
> thinking and disjunctive
> thinking.  The former goes is a systematic fashion
> from A to B to C.  The
> latter tends to jump from A to J, without stopping
> at B, C, or D.

That definitely occurs in diagnosing illness; while
flowcharts and algorithms are very useful in teaching,
or for less-trained personnel, sudden insight can
allow  that jump from Decision Point 2 to Decision
Point 8c.

The Fool:
"You've merely trained your brain to do work that you
used to do consciously to being done sub consciously."
and
"No, you only think it is skipping B, C and D."
 
Our brains are not hardwired in linear fashion;
survival often depends (or used to) on judgement
and/or action being taken without certain knowledge. 
That is one reason for physical reflexes: they totally
bypass any thinking whatsoever.  Placing a hand on a
hot surface generates the 'yank it away' response - no
cortical neurons involved at all.  Emotional reflexes
are at least supra-cerebellar, usually tempered by
some minimal thought, although not always: Awareness
of being observed -> 'That fellow is watching me from
the shadows...Get back inside!!'  

'Thoughts' not articulated: 
I suddenly see a person standing in the shadow.  
It is a man, in dark clothes, with a ski mask covering
his face.  
No one from the party was wearing a mask.  
A friend or aquaintance would say something, or wave.
A woman in the neighborhood was attacked last week.
The attacker was not apprehended.
I do not have a weapon.
I am defenseless if that man does.
He has not yet moved toward me, but could probaly
cover the ~25 feet between us in seconds.
If I scream, my friends may not hear me over the
music.
I will calmly turn and go back toward the door,
listening very carefully for any footfalls.
If I hear any, I will immediately scream and run
without turning around to look first, because at a run
I'm only a few seconds away from the door.

Later, one might describe to one's friends those
'thoughts,' but as potential prey, I can assure you
that from awareness of being watched to turning back
toward the door took about 1/3 of a second.  When
wakened by an unfamiliar presence, it takes more like
2-3 seconds to respond appropriately, with at le

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Richard Baker]

Nick said:

Eh?  Insistence on the non-existence of God *is* dogma.  Any  
insistence on
the non-existence of something is dogma.  It has to be, since it  
cannot be

logically proved.


So if I insist that there exists nowhere in the universe a  
calculating machine that can prove that 7 is  an integer multiple of  
2...?


Rich

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Richard Baker]

Charlie said:

LOL Atheists (at least in "the West") tend to be far more liberal  
and laissez-faire than the population at large. Welfare state yes,  
police state no.


If you don't want to be in charge of the Atheist Dominion, maybe I  
could be?


Rich
VFP Just Asking

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 10/05/2006, at 5:34 PM, Dan Minette wrote:




In the long term, governments will fade away.  In the short term,  
there is
the dictatorship of the proletariat.  Democracy, human rights, etc.  
are
considered a bourgeoisie invention that does not take into account  
that

societies are fundamentally economic in nature.  Thus, a Communist
dictatorship, with collective ownership, is the next step forward  
in history

after a liberal/capitalistic state.


Actually, Marx may have envisioned more a bottom-up mutual-interest  
based society. Collective ownership, as in social democracies, is a  
*growing* phenomenon. Just look at the rise of collective owneship of  
football clubs, for example. From only a couple 10 years ago in the  
UK to over a hundred mutual trusts.




From the 50s through the late 70s/early 80s, it appeared that  
Marxism was a

very viable political/economic theory.  Decade by decade, Marxist
governments spread throughout the world.  The US was seen to lose an
imperialistic war in SE Asia, with the nature result being the  
extension of

the Marxist government.  Most governments in Africa were Marxist, with
central planned economies.  India was socialistic and loosely in  
the Soviet

camp.


Marxist government is an oxymoron. By its very definition, Marxism  
requires the emergent behaviour of a networked population, not the  
imposition of a planned economy through a police state.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Myers-Briggs

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Paul
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:21 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: Myers-Briggs
> 
> No, in fact it seems to be growing in popularity. Who discredited
> Marxism? It's out of favour for sure, but when was the official
> accreditation lost?

Well, we are not talking about anything official, of course, but the general
flow of things. 

> And are we talking Marxism here, or the more general communism?

Well, I always thought that Marxism was a larger field...including
Marxist-Leninist thought as well as Maoist thinking.  Generalizations tend
to be a bit slippery, but let me give an outline of the two systems that
contrasted.

Marxism tends to focus on the interplay of class, not individuals.  The
historical dielectic is a critical tool for Marxist thought.  It is seen to
be the science of historical/political development.  Economic class conflict
is seen to be fundamental. 

In the long term, governments will fade away.  In the short term, there is
the dictatorship of the proletariat.  Democracy, human rights, etc. are
considered a bourgeoisie invention that does not take into account that
societies are fundamentally economic in nature.  Thus, a Communist
dictatorship, with collective ownership, is the next step forward in history
after a liberal/capitalistic state.

>From the 50s through the late 70s/early 80s, it appeared that Marxism was a
very viable political/economic theory.  Decade by decade, Marxist
governments spread throughout the world.  The US was seen to lose an
imperialistic war in SE Asia, with the nature result being the extension of
the Marxist government.  Most governments in Africa were Marxist, with
central planned economies.  India was socialistic and loosely in the Soviet
camp.  

But, the inherent inefficiencies in planned economies finally overwhelmed
Communist countries.  The GDP of the Soviet Union fell through the 1980s,
just as military spending was increased to try to match the spending of the
US.  At the end, about half of the GDP went to the military (the US now
spends about 4% of GDP on the military).  

After the fall of the Berlin wall, the USSR disintegrated and the former
Warsaw Pack countries happily moved to the US's sphere of influence.
Germany reunited, using the West German model of society for the new unified
country.  China opened up it's economy to markets, at least somewhat.  The
present boom in China is tied to the opening of the economy to market
forces.  Marxist governments in Africa sought ties to the West.  While there
is, often, rampant corruption and strong ties between the government and
industry in Africa, no government is explicitly Marxist.

North Korea, Cuba, and perhaps Laos are the remaining strongly Marxist
governments.

About the same time, I noticed that the leftists I was arguing with stopped
making Marxist arguments and started making arguments that I later found out
were associated with post-modernism. The arguments I see on the web, in
forums, etc. are not Marxist the way they were in the '70s.

Now, this may not be a good representation of thought in other countries, so
I'll be happy to see counter-examples that show that how people are still
true Marxists elsewhere.  But, the sea change from the '70s until now is
tremendous.

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: *-ism (was: Myers-Briggs)

[Andrew Paul]

> From: Klaus Stock
> > > Who discredited Marxism?
> > >
> > Communism :-)
> >
> > > It's out of favour for sure, but when was the official
> > > accreditation lost?
> > >
> > 1989, the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
> 
> Did it discredit Marxism, or did it just discredit centrally planned
> economy?

Or did it just discredit the particular implementation of CPE practised
in the USSR and foisted on its vassal states

Andrew
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: *-ism (was: Myers-Briggs)

[Klaus Stock]

> > Who discredited Marxism?
> >
> Communism :-)
> 
> > It's out of favour for sure, but when was the official
> > accreditation lost?
> >
> 1989, the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Did it discredit Marxism, or did it just discredit centrally planned
economy?

> > And are we talking Marxism here, or the more general communism?
> > 
> Communism, Socialism, and other flavours.

Or is centrally planned economy just a perceivable result/sideeffect of
Marxism?

Anyway, the GDR ("East Germany") seemed to have more democracy than the
countries which the USA lead to "democracy" in the last decade or so.

- Klaus

_
This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.orgg

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Myers-Briggs

[PAT MATHEWS]

Guys - change the subject line?




http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/






From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
To: Killer Bs Discussion 
Subject: RE: Myers-Briggs
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:29:37 -0200

Andrew Paul wrote:
>
>>> Marxist (...) is now considered fairly well discredited.
>>
>> But not in South America :-(
>>
>
> No, in fact it seems to be growing in popularity.
>
In Australia too? That's surprising.

> Who discredited Marxism?
>
Communism :-)

> It's out of favour for sure, but when was the official
> accreditation lost?
>
1989, the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

> And are we talking Marxism here, or the more general communism?
>
Communism, Socialism, and other flavours.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Myers-Briggs

[Alberto Monteiro]

Andrew Paul wrote:
>
>>> Marxist (...) is now considered fairly well discredited.
>>
>> But not in South America :-(
>>
> 
> No, in fact it seems to be growing in popularity.
>
In Australia too? That's surprising.

> Who discredited Marxism?
>
Communism :-)

> It's out of favour for sure, but when was the official
> accreditation lost?
>
1989, the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

> And are we talking Marxism here, or the more general communism?
> 
Communism, Socialism, and other flavours.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Myers-Briggs

[Andrew Paul]

> From: Alberto Monteiro
> 
> Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > As recently as 25 years ago, Marxist thought
> > predominated in European, South American, and South Asian
> > universities (in things like econ, liberal arts, sociology) and was
> > common in the US.  It is now considered fairly well discredited.
> >
> But not in South America :-(
> 

No, in fact it seems to be growing in popularity. Who discredited
Marxism? It's out of favour for sure, but when was the official
accreditation lost?
And are we talking Marxism here, or the more general communism?

Andrew


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[William T Goodall]

On 10 May 2006, at 4:09AM, Dan Minette wrote:

  As
recently as 25 years ago, Marxist thought predominated in European,  
South
American, and South Asian universities (in things like econ,  
liberal arts,

sociology) and was common in the US.  It is now considered fairly well
discredited.  Marxist thought was considered "scientific", the  
application

of the sciences of sociology, political science, and economics.


If only other religions could be discredited as easily as the Marxist  
religion.


--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Due to a typographical error the entire arctic deployment had been  
issued Turkish pastries as headwear.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Myers-Briggs

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dan Minette wrote:
>
> As recently as 25 years ago, Marxist thought 
> predominated in European, South American, and South Asian 
> universities (in things like econ, liberal arts, sociology) and was 
> common in the US.  It is now considered fairly well discredited. 
>
But not in South America :-(

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Myers-Briggs

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Julia Thompson
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:14 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs
> 
> Nick Arnett wrote:
> > On 5/7/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be "fundamentalist",
> >> there's no scripture or dogma. I
> >
> >
> > Eh?  Insistence on the non-existence of God *is* dogma.  Any
> > insistence on the non-existence of something is dogma.  It has to be,
> > since it cannot be logically proved.
> 
> There's no scripture, though, which I think is an important part of the
> definition of "fundamentalism".

Teri's just finishing a semester course on fundamentalismand as you
alluded a "literal" reading of scripture is an important part of it.  It's
an attempt to get back to the fundamental understanding of revealed truth.
Now, in fact, no one really takes all of scripture literallybut that's
another topic.


> I think "militant" is a more useful adjective when describing some
> atheists.  See my previous post on the subject.

While that does describe some atheists in my view, I also think the
reference to dogma by Alberto is valid.  One way to look at dogmatism is
that it is over-certainty in a metaphysical viewpoint.  It sees proofs and
certainty where there are none.  The Catholic church has never had
fundamentalist tendencies, for example.  But, it surely has had dogmatic
ones.  

Dogmatism is not the sole province of the religious.  People can insist that
a number of metaphysical issues are well settled, shown, or the obvious
conclusion for even the most casual observer. We have examples both large
and small of this.  Marxism is one of the first to come to mind.  As
recently as 25 years ago, Marxist thought predominated in European, South
American, and South Asian universities (in things like econ, liberal arts,
sociology) and was common in the US.  It is now considered fairly well
discredited.  Marxist thought was considered "scientific", the application
of the sciences of sociology, political science, and economics.

Objectivism is another example.  Ayn Rand's books are still quite
popularand one's on the local high school required reading list.  I've
had discussions with many dogmatic objectivists who claim numerous things
are well proven...and "scientifically" at that.

There are smaller examples too.  I remember someone arguing on this list
that a person who stayed in a burning, smoke-filled building, knocking on
his neighbors doors, because that increased the likelihood of them rescuing
him some time in the future. He argued hard against my assertions that the
probability of dying then and there far outweighed the probability of him
being in a position where they could save his life.  IMHO, this was a
dogmatic argument that enlightened self-interest could be used to explain
all altruistic behavior.

There are other "scientific" or "clearly proven from observation" arguments
that do not hold up to skepticism.  Now, some of the positions, like the
value of taking care of others, I agree are valid.  They just aren't
empirically based/proven concepts.

One tendency I've seen in most dogmatists I've known is a dislike of
personal uncertainty.  There is a certain path, things are known, etc.  This
dogmatism certainly presents itself as religious belief...but it also
presents itself in many other forms.  The strong British belief that the
Irish were inherently inferior (blood tells) that existed in early centuries
is an example of this.

So, I'd argue that dogmatism is a weakness/tendency that humans have.  It is
a form of faulty thinking that is not limited to one group or another.
People who are very open and analytical in one area can be closed and
dogmatic in another.  Atheism isn't dogmatic any more than theism is.  But,
both atheists and theists can tend towards dogmatism.

Finally, the problems with beliefs might lead to the argument that both
societies and individuals are better off with a minimal set of beliefs.  I'd
argue that running with an absolute minimal set of beliefs limits
actions...not just harmful actions.  But, that discussion is long enough to
require a separate post to start.

Dan M. 




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 10/05/2006, at 12:36 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:


Charlie Bell wrote:

"Yet here we are". I post. Replies appear, thanks to the efforts  
of various other human (I assume, given that the ones I've met IRL  
were

 fairly human) participants. That's all. It's just a mailing list.
It's not a metaphor for metaphysics, unless Zeus is on MSN these
days.


I'd think it would be Hermes on MSN, not Zeus.  :)


Good point, well made. :)

Charlie
Little Added Value Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Julia Thompson]

Charlie Bell wrote:



"Yet here we are". I post. Replies appear, thanks to the efforts of 
various other human (I assume, given that the ones I've met IRL were

 fairly human) participants. That's all. It's just a mailing list.
It's not a metaphor for metaphysics, unless Zeus is on MSN these
days.


I'd think it would be Hermes on MSN, not Zeus.  :)

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[William T Goodall]

On 9 May 2006, at 8:53PM, Dan Minette wrote:


In short, we all make untestable metaphysical assumptions.  I'd  
consider
some of them "reasonable", and others not so "reasonable".  My  
basis for
this, will be included in a post I'll make on fundamentalism and  
atheism.


Even if we all make 'untestable metaphysical assumptions' it is a  
giant unsupported leap from there to believing in the supernatural  
(and in particular the existence of gods).


As you say some metaphysical ideas are reasonable and others are not  
so reasonable. Beleiving that there is some kind of 'real world' that  
corresponds to the impressions of our senses is one of the reasonable  
beliefs. Belief in god(s) on the other hand is very unreasonable.



--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence  
whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the  
silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more  
likely to be foolish than sensible."

- Bertrand Russell

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Myers-Briggs

[Dan Minette]

Charlie wrote
> 
> Certainly is possible. Huxley coined the term, and while it has come
> to mean "not really sure" or "believe there's sort of something",
> it's originally the position that the true nature and existence of
> the deity is unknowable and unprovable. It's separating what we can
> know from what we believe. It's probably the only honest philosophy
> to have if you're a scientist.

I have a quibble with Huxley's statement, and your view that it's the only
honest philosophy for scientists.  It's not a quibble in the sense that I
don't think it's important.  It's a quibble in the sense that I need to
parse the usual, everyday, casual understanding of knowledge into several
parts in order to be clear about what I wish to say.

I'd like to start with a metaphysical assumption that most (virtually all)
people hold: the empirical world has some tie to reality.  Even strong,
Platonic idealists consider the world at least a shadow of reality.
Idealists do not randomly step in from of trains, freeway traffic, etc.
because they feel that being hit by a car or train is simply an illusion.

Now, this is an assumption.  For me, at least, there are times when this
assumption has proven false.  Some of my dreams are very realistic.  I have
lost control of a bus during a dream and run over people.  I thought about
the horrible consequence of what I had just done, woke up, and happily
realized that there were no consequences at all. 

I don't have absolute knowledge that I'm not dreaming now.  There is no
scientific way to prove that.  But, it seems reasonable that I'm awake, and
I'm acting as though I am.

And, if I am, indeed, not dreaming, then I am right.  My understanding is
correct, even though I cannot prove it.  In short, things can be correct
without being proven. We can extend this to other metaphysical statements.  

For example, the statement that the images our senses record are tied to
reality can be a true statement. The fact that the validity of observations
can not be tested by observations (except for internal consistency) doesn't
prove that observations are without value.

Let's extend that to other metaphysical statements.  The "self-evident
truths" of the Enlightenment listed in the Declaration of Independence could
be true.  Humans could have rights, even though their existence is not
provable by observations (except if you consider existence as arbitrary
social constructs as proof of existence). 

We can extend this to thoughts about the Divine.  It is possible for us to
obtain some understanding of the Divine, even if we cannot prove it.  It
makes sense to me to say that human understanding of the transcendent is
inherently complete, and thus somewhat misleading.  Still, it is not
impossible that people who teach that God calls us to love our neighbor as
ourselves are closer to the mark than someone who argues that they have a
right to kill people they don't like because God told them to.  

For me, the more fundamental problem then the question of the existence of
God is the existence of Truth: that which is valid no matter what we think.
We may not understand or understand the truth of morality, but some things
are wrong to do.  For example, I believe the statement "it is wrong to rape
and torture an innocent child for the sheer pleasure if it is wrong" is a
true statement.  I can't prove it, but I believe it is true.  I can also
argue, on reason, that one cannot show that there are no true statements.

In short, we all make untestable metaphysical assumptions.  I'd consider
some of them "reasonable", and others not so "reasonable".  My basis for
this, will be included in a post I'll make on fundamentalism and atheism.

Dan M. 




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 09/05/2006, at 5:07 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 5/9/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Exactly what I'm saying. Humans have always had that - it's precisely
what makes us human. :) So when Nick says "prior to the invention of
scientific methods... ...it must have been a weird, weird world" he's
right. It was weird 'cause there weren't any people in it. That
humans have spent most of prehistory and history coming up with wrong
answers is fine - that's how it works. We're gradually getting closer
to the right answers.



The scientific method is the only way to learn anything... the only  
way
anybody learns anything is the scientific method.  It's a circular  
argument.


No, that's just saying the same thing two ways. Saying that the sum  
of knowledge is the consequence of years of trial and error, and more  
trial and error is the best way of continuing to add to that  
knowledge is not circular. Or is "I drove a car to get here, and if I  
carry on driving this car I can get over there" a circular argument?


What I'm suggesting above is that the ability to store memories, pass  
on information, and test assumptions against observations is the core  
of what we are and the foundation of our understanding and  
interaction with the universe and each other.




If these statements were true, how would we ever learn anything  
that isn't
true?  How does error get into our brains if we cannot learn things  
in ways

that are unscientific?


Nice straw man. I said human knowledge is the sum of trial and error,  
not that everything we learn is true.


People lie. People make mistakes. People come up with the wrong  
explanations. People pass on lies and mistakes. Sometimes those lies  
or mistakes are compelling. Often they're compelling because they're  
easier than the truth. Or they're just the best explanation  
available. But that doesn't mean they're right. That's the "error"  
part of the whole "trial and error" thing. We can accumulate wrong  
knowledge, we just have to believe it.


The stars used to be the fires of our ancestors, or the funeral pyres  
of dead warriors, or the representations of heroes, or even the gods  
themselves. These were all explanations passed on from generation to  
generation, they were all considered true at various times by various  
peoples. They were all wrong.


We all know lots of things that are wrong. We've misunderstood (that  
happens), or we've convinced ourselves because it makes us feel  
better (no, I really did leave her, she didn't leave me), or we like  
the story (marc almond/elton john/rod stewart collapsed on stage and  
had horse semen pumped from their stomachs), or we've just been told  
stuff that isn't true - whether knowingly or not - (Iraq has chemical  
weapons that can strike Cyprus).



And if we *can* learn things in ways that are
unscientific, why can't some of them be true?


They can be. It's just difficult to show they're true if you refuse  
to allow inquiry. Revelations or flashes of insight sometimes come  
out of the blue. They might well be true. But without any kind of  
further study, or development, what's the point?


Plenty of things that aren't "true" can have meaning and value, if  
only as entertainment, or art, or for our own satisfaction. Politics  
is more about beliefs (or self-interest) than truth. But the rest?  
Things that are outside the realms of naturalism which are "true"?  
Ethics? Morals? They're a social construct. Beauty, love? They're  
feelings, powerful ones, and they're real in many ways, and I suppose  
that it could be said that's a form of "truth". But they're just too  
subjective to be universal, and that's one of the important features  
of truth, in my book - that it's independent of our individual  
perceptions, that it can be shared by all.


This mailing list is rather unscientific, in my opinion (not that I  
have

rigorously tested this hypothesis). Yet here we are.


"Yet here we are". I post. Replies appear, thanks to the efforts of  
various other human (I assume, given that the ones I've met IRL were  
fairly human) participants. That's all. It's just a mailing list.  
It's not a metaphor for metaphysics, unless Zeus is on MSN these days.


Charlie


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Nick Arnett]

On 5/9/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Exactly what I'm saying. Humans have always had that - it's precisely
what makes us human. :) So when Nick says "prior to the invention of
scientific methods... ...it must have been a weird, weird world" he's
right. It was weird 'cause there weren't any people in it. That
humans have spent most of prehistory and history coming up with wrong
answers is fine - that's how it works. We're gradually getting closer
to the right answers.



The scientific method is the only way to learn anything... the only way
anybody learns anything is the scientific method.  It's a circular argument.

If these statements were true, how would we ever learn anything that isn't
true?  How does error get into our brains if we cannot learn things in ways
that are unscientific?  And if we *can* learn things in ways that are
unscientific, why can't some of them be true?

This mailing list is rather unscientific, in my opinion (not that I have
rigorously tested this hypothesis). Yet here we are.

Nick


--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 09/05/2006, at 6:46 AM, Andrew Paul wrote:


From: Charlie Bell


Thus, prior to the invention of scientific methods, nobody knew
anything.
It must have been a weird, weird world.


The "scientific method" boils down to "trial and error, repeat what
works". Without that, and the ability to remember the errors, nobody
*did* know anything. The concept of knowledge itself means nothing
without that.



Well, to be fair, humans have always had a sort of built in scientific
method of sorts haven't they? Trial and error as you put it. The  
Method

is really just a fancy name for a formalised way of thinking (and
sharing those thoughts in a safe and consensual way). So people  
noticed

that the sun always seemed to rise over there, they knew it. Or people
*knew* which way was up, they just didn't know why it was, or how it
worked. Unlike now when we .. umm, still don't know, but can say  
that in

a much longer way.


Exactly what I'm saying. Humans have always had that - it's precisely  
what makes us human. :) So when Nick says "prior to the invention of  
scientific methods... ...it must have been a weird, weird world" he's  
right. It was weird 'cause there weren't any people in it. That  
humans have spent most of prehistory and history coming up with wrong  
answers is fine - that's how it works. We're gradually getting closer  
to the right answers.


Charlie

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Myers-Briggs

[Andrew Paul]

> From: Charlie Bell
> >
> > Thus, prior to the invention of scientific methods, nobody knew
> > anything.
> > It must have been a weird, weird world.
> 
> The "scientific method" boils down to "trial and error, repeat what
> works". Without that, and the ability to remember the errors, nobody
> *did* know anything. The concept of knowledge itself means nothing
> without that.
> 

Well, to be fair, humans have always had a sort of built in scientific
method of sorts haven't they? Trial and error as you put it. The Method
is really just a fancy name for a formalised way of thinking (and
sharing those thoughts in a safe and consensual way). So people noticed
that the sun always seemed to rise over there, they knew it. Or people
*knew* which way was up, they just didn't know why it was, or how it
worked. Unlike now when we .. umm, still don't know, but can say that in
a much longer way.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Myers-Briggs

[Horn, John]

On Behalf Of Julia Thompson
> 
> There's no scripture, though, which I think is an important 
> part of the definition of "fundamentalism".
> 
> I think "militant" is a more useful adjective when describing 
> some atheists.  See my previous post on the subject.

I always used the description "devout atheist" to describe some
people I know.  Seemed a nice combination of opposites...

 - jmh
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/05/2006, at 11:39 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 5/8/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Non-belief and belief-in-not are *different*.



Of course -- I realized the distinction when I wrote that.  I wrote it
because what the Fool is expressing is not non-belief, it is clearly
belief-in-not.


Indeed. "Strong atheism", or nontheism, or possibly antitheism. Which  
can be considered a belief, depending how it's expressed. Or just a  
conviction.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Nick Arnett]

On 5/8/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Non-belief and belief-in-not are *different*.



Of course -- I realized the distinction when I wrote that.  I wrote it
because what the Fool is expressing is not non-belief, it is clearly
belief-in-not.

Nick


--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/05/2006, at 9:44 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 5/7/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be "fundamentalist", there's
no scripture or dogma. I



Eh?  Insistence on the non-existence of God *is* dogma.


 Read what I said. That isn't what I said.


Any insistence on
the non-existence of something is dogma.  It has to be, since it  
cannot be

logically proved.


Non-belief and belief-in-not are *different*.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/05/2006, at 9:40 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 5/6/06, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Their IS no way of knowing things without the scientific process.
You're just arguing religion again.



Thus, prior to the invention of scientific methods, nobody knew  
anything.

It must have been a weird, weird world.


The "scientific method" boils down to "trial and error, repeat what  
works". Without that, and the ability to remember the errors, nobody  
*did* know anything. The concept of knowledge itself means nothing  
without that.


The inventions are procedural and statistical, making the process  
easier to peer-review. The process itself is as messy, curiosity- 
driven, insightful and serendipitous as ever. There really isn't a  
single "scientific method", it's more a toolbox which is used  
differently depending on the question being asked.


And all the people in the world today who imagine they know things  
that they

didn't come to know through science, they know nothing?


The trial and error can be displaced, spatially, individually,  
nationally, temporally. Not everyone needs to work everything out  
from first principles, in fact most people through history have  
benefitted from the insights of a few. But *someone* had to go  
through the process. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" is a  
truism, but it's how we got where we are.


It's networking. Surely *you* can appreciate that?

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Julia Thompson]

Nick Arnett wrote:

On 5/7/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be "fundamentalist",
there's no scripture or dogma. I



Eh?  Insistence on the non-existence of God *is* dogma.  Any
insistence on the non-existence of something is dogma.  It has to be,
since it cannot be logically proved.


There's no scripture, though, which I think is an important part of the
definition of "fundamentalism".

I think "militant" is a more useful adjective when describing some 
atheists.  See my previous post on the subject.


Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Nick Arnett]

On 5/7/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be "fundamentalist", there's
no scripture or dogma. I



Eh?  Insistence on the non-existence of God *is* dogma.  Any insistence on
the non-existence of something is dogma.  It has to be, since it cannot be
logically proved.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Nick Arnett]

On 5/6/06, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Nick  wrote:

> I see a glaring logical error.  The idea that *only* science can
minimize
> self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be falsified.

I don't get it, couldn't you falsify the idea by comming up with some
other method that minimizes
self-deception and identifies non-existent causes?



No, because the "other method" wouldn't be scientific, by definition.
That's what happens when one argues from one's conclusions.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Nick Arnett]

On 5/6/06, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Their IS no way of knowing things without the scientific process.
You're just arguing religion again.



Thus, prior to the invention of scientific methods, nobody knew anything.
It must have been a weird, weird world.

And all the people in the world today who imagine they know things that they
didn't come to know through science, they know nothing?

Pfui.



Why do I get the feeling most of those 'means' are related to religion?



Could be because you have a bit of an obsession about religion, which you're
projecting onto me?

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/05/2006, at 2:43 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:


Charlie Bell wrote:


Not sure if you being on my side will help here, but that's the
point  I was just making, yes.


As atheists, you both want to establish a police state, with
_you_ as Supreme Guide, with the other as a lieutant :-P


LOL Atheists (at least in "the West") tend to be far more liberal and  
laissez-faire than the population at large. Welfare state yes, police  
state no.


Chariie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Alberto Monteiro]

Charlie Bell wrote:
> 
> Not sure if you being on my side will help here, but that's the 
> point  I was just making, yes.
> 
As atheists, you both want to establish a police state, with
_you_ as Supreme Guide, with the other as a lieutant :-P

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/05/2006, at 2:19 PM, William T Goodall wrote:


Where do you put the atheist religions (such as Confucianism) in  
this scheme?


...or several types of Buddhism. Many atheists follow Buddhist  
philosophy.




And communism is a quasi-religion anyway...


Not sure if you being on my side will help here, but that's the point  
I was just making, yes.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/05/2006, at 2:10 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:


Doug Pensinger wrote:



No, it's not, and this belief [fundamentalist atheism]
may have killed more people
than all religions put together - you missed this same
discussion we had here about 6 months ago.


Wern't those people killed in the name of communism though?  Atheism
!= Communism.


If you group together all religions, do a body count, and do
not exclude those killed by, say, the aztec sun worship, then
I can also put all atheisms together :-P


"all atheisms"?


Communism => Fundamentalist Atheism


No it's not. Communism acts as a substitute for religion, and is  
therefore (or was in the major 20th century experiments anyway) both  
jealous of organised religion, and a pseudoreligion itself. But  
atheism isn't to blame. It's a huge strawman, the "atheism is bad and  
wrong because some who professed atheism killed millions". It's as  
stupid as "religion is wrong for those reasons". Religion may have  
been and excuse, atheism may have (but I don't think it was), but  
it's actually irrelevant in both cases to which is right.


It's like saying evolution is evil because of eugenics. It's just  
intellectually lazy and stupid.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[William T Goodall]

On 8 May 2006, at 12:10PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:


Doug Pensinger wrote:



No, it's not, and this belief [fundamentalist atheism]
may have killed more people
than all religions put together - you missed this same
discussion we had here about 6 months ago.


Wern't those people killed in the name of communism though?  Atheism
!= Communism.


If you group together all religions, do a body count, and do
not exclude those killed by, say, the aztec sun worship, then
I can also put all atheisms together :-P

Communism => Fundamentalist Atheism


Where do you put the atheist religions (such as Confucianism) in this  
scheme?


And communism is a quasi-religion anyway...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy  
to kiss. - David Brin


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Alberto Monteiro]

Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
>> No, it's not, and this belief [fundamentalist atheism]
>> may have killed more people
>> than all religions put together - you missed this same
>> discussion we had here about 6 months ago.
> 
> Wern't those people killed in the name of communism though?  Atheism 
> != Communism.
> 
If you group together all religions, do a body count, and do
not exclude those killed by, say, the aztec sun worship, then
I can also put all atheisms together :-P

Communism => Fundamentalist Atheism

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 08/05/2006, at 12:28 AM, Dan Minette wrote:


Well, then it's clearly possible to be an agnostic Christian by that
definition. A significant fraction of Christians would be  
agnostics, by your
definition...including me.  Even our pastor, who is fairly  
Evangelical,

agrees that there is no proof of the existence of God.


Certainly is possible. Huxley coined the term, and while it has come  
to mean "not really sure" or "believe there's sort of something",  
it's originally the position that the true nature and existence of  
the deity is unknowable and unprovable. It's separating what we can  
know from what we believe. It's probably the only honest philosophy  
to have if you're a scientist.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Myers-Briggs

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 3:57 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs
> 
> 
> On 07/05/2006, at 11:53 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
> 
> >
> > I think "militant atheism" is a better description of the
> > philosophy apparently espoused by The Fool.
> 
> Certainly is.
> 
> >
> > There is no text from which to be "fundamentalist" for atheism, as
> > far as I know.  "Militant" is a reasonably accurate adjective to
> > denote the passion with which this philosophy appears to be held.
> 
> Precisely.
> 
> > If anyone is going to be militant regarding religious attitude, I
> > would prefer to engage in debate with a militant agnostic above all
> > other militants, personally.  ("I don't know and you don't
> > either!"  "You're right, I don't know.  Let's go have some lemonade
> > together, OK?  Unless you're allergic to citrus or something.")
> 
> *chuckle*
> 
> Of course it's possible to be both agnostic and atheist - to accept
> that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity,
> while believing that there isn't one.

Well, then it's clearly possible to be an agnostic Christian by that
definition. A significant fraction of Christians would be agnostics, by your
definition...including me.  Even our pastor, who is fairly Evangelical,
agrees that there is no proof of the existence of God. 

Dan M.  


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 07/05/2006, at 11:53 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:



I think "militant atheism" is a better description of the  
philosophy apparently espoused by The Fool.


Certainly is.



There is no text from which to be "fundamentalist" for atheism, as  
far as I know.  "Militant" is a reasonably accurate adjective to  
denote the passion with which this philosophy appears to be held.


Precisely.

If anyone is going to be militant regarding religious attitude, I  
would prefer to engage in debate with a militant agnostic above all  
other militants, personally.  ("I don't know and you don't  
either!"  "You're right, I don't know.  Let's go have some lemonade  
together, OK?  Unless you're allergic to citrus or something.")


*chuckle*

Of course it's possible to be both agnostic and atheist - to accept  
that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity,  
while believing that there isn't one.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Julia Thompson]

Charlie Bell wrote:


On 07/05/2006, at 3:37 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:


Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


Fool, I'm just curious.  Most of the articles you post are ones
claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other.  Can
you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions
like "the truth" or "rational thinking and behavior") that you are 
_for_?



I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think
he admires one religion, "fundamentalist atheism".


*wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?

There's a difference between atheism and antitheism.


I think "militant atheism" is a better description of the philosophy 
apparently espoused by The Fool.


There is no text from which to be "fundamentalist" for atheism, as far 
as I know.  "Militant" is a reasonably accurate adjective to denote the 
passion with which this philosophy appears to be held.


If anyone is going to be militant regarding religious attitude, I would 
prefer to engage in debate with a militant agnostic above all other 
militants, personally.  ("I don't know and you don't either!"  "You're 
right, I don't know.  Let's go have some lemonade together, OK?  Unless 
you're allergic to citrus or something.")


Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 07/05/2006, at 10:49 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:


Alberto wrote:



It might be a belief, it might even be
strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of  
belief.


No, it's not, and this belief may have killed more people than all  
religions
put together - you missed this same discussion we had here about 6  
months ago.


Wern't those people killed in the name of communism though?   
Atheism != Communism.


Indeed. It wouldn't have made a difference whether the lunatics in  
charge believed in the Easter Bunny - they believed in planned  
economies under police states and THAT'S what killed people.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)

[Robert J. Chassell]

> Ten or fifteen years ago, I gave Kiersey style Myers-Briggs
> tests to dozen people I knew.

And anecdotal evidince has what value in science?

Well, you need not pay any attention to my report.  My experience was
that when I gave a test to a dozen people, I found that a bit more
than half the results matched the categories into which I fit people
in other ways.  Moreover, since I myself did the experiment and
followed the reasoning, I had an internal experience that I found
convincing to myself.

> Guardians of birthdays, holidays and celebrations,
> Virgo's are generous entertainers.  They enjoy and
> joyfully observe traditions and are liberal in giving,
> especially where custom prescribes.

> All else being equal, Virgo's enjoy being in charge.
> They see problems clearly and delegate easily, work hard
> and play with zest. Virgo's, bear strong allegiance to
> rights of seniority.  They willingly provide service
> (which embodies life's meaning) and expect the same from
> others.
> vrs
> Pices's are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture
> so deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often
> actually are oblivious to the world around them.
>
> Precise about their descriptions, Pices's will often
> correct others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of
> meaning is a bit off.  While annoying to the less
> concise, this fine discrimination ability gives Pices's
> so inclined a natural advantage as, for example,
> grammarians and linguists.

Reads like an astrology collumn in the newspaper.

Doesn't to me, unless of course, you pay attention to the names (like
Pices and Virgo).  To me, Forer's text as given in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect
sounds much more like an astrology column.

--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 07/05/2006, at 10:40 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:


Charlie Bell wrote:



*wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?


By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc]
exists.


So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be "fundamentalist", there's
no scripture or dogma.

Yes, there are. "Das Kapital" and the dogma that there ain't no  
such thing as

a Dog.


Still no. Lack of belief in x does not equal belief in not x. Active  
disbelief in a god or gods is a belief, but it's not "dogma".





It might be a belief, it might even be
strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of  
belief.


No, it's not, and this belief may have killed more people than all  
religions
put together - you missed this same discussion we had here about 6  
months ago.


I've seen that argued before, and it's bunk. It's not the atheism  
that killed people, it's the psychopaths in charge. In fact, the USSR  
was not officially atheist at all.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Doug Pensinger]

Alberto wrote:



It might be a belief, it might even be
strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of belief.

No, it's not, and this belief may have killed more people than all 
religions
put together - you missed this same discussion we had here about 6 
months ago.


Wern't those people killed in the name of communism though?  Atheism != 
Communism.


--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro]

Charlie Bell wrote:
>
>>> *wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?
>>
>> By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc]
>> exists.
>
> So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be "fundamentalist", there's
> no scripture or dogma.
>
Yes, there are. "Das Kapital" and the dogma that there ain't no such thing as 
a Dog.

> It might be a belief, it might even be 
> strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of belief.
>
No, it's not, and this belief may have killed more people than all religions
put together - you missed this same discussion we had here about 6 months ago.

Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 07/05/2006, at 10:05 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:


Charlie Bell escreveu:



I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think
he admires one religion, "fundamentalist atheism".


*wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?

By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc]  
exists.


So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be "fundamentalist", there's  
no scripture or dogma. It might be a belief, it might even be  
strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of belief.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro]

Charlie Bell escreveu:
>
>> I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think
>> he admires one religion, "fundamentalist atheism".
>
> *wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?
>
By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc] exists.

Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 07/05/2006, at 3:37 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:


Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


Fool, I'm just curious.  Most of the articles you post are ones
claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other.  Can
you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions
like "the truth" or "rational thinking and behavior") that you are  
_for_?



I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think
he admires one religion, "fundamentalist atheism".


*wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?

There's a difference between atheism and antitheism.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
>
> Fool, I'm just curious.  Most of the articles you post are ones
> claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other.  Can
> you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions
> like "the truth" or "rational thinking and behavior") that you are _for_?
>
I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think
he admires one religion, "fundamentalist atheism".

Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:10 PM Saturday 5/6/2006, The Fool wrote:
[snipped]


Fool, I'm just curious.  Most of the articles you post are ones 
claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other.  Can 
you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions 
like "the truth" or "rational thinking and behavior") that you are _for_?



--Ronn!  :)

"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country 
and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER 
GOD.  Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that 
would be eliminated from schools too?"

   -- Red Skelton

(Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.)




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Doug Pensinger]

Nick  wrote:


I see a glaring logical error.  The idea that *only* science can minimize
self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be falsified.


I don't get it, couldn't you falsify the idea by comming up with some 
other method that minimizes

self-deception and identifies non-existent causes?

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)

[The Fool]

> From: Robert J. Chassell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> If it's science at all, it's a very fluffy kind of science.
> 
> Ten or fifteen years ago, I gave Kiersey style Myers-Briggs tests to
a
> dozen people I knew.  I felt the results were accurate in about 7 of
> those 12 cases.  So I decided it was pretty good for this kind of
> topic (and no good at all if you seek only 25% error.)
> 
> What is the probability of 7 out of 12 people each choosing 1 out of
> 16 randomly?

And anecdotal evidince has what value in science?
 
> I tend to doubt the Forer effect is highly important for
Myers-Briggs,
> although doubtless, it is somewhat important.
> 
> (According to
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect
> 
> The Forer effect ... is the observation that individuals will
give
> high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that
> supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact
> vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.
> 
> (The article also gives Forer's text.)
> 
> Here are the first two paragraphs of 2 of 16 MBTI profiles from
> http://www.typelogic.com/; they seem to me quite different.  When
> given a choice of which to choose, I doubt an ESFJ would choose to be
> described as an INTP although he or she might well choose a
> description closer to his or her temperament.
> 
> Guardians of birthdays, holidays and celebrations, Virgo's
are
> generous entertainers.  They enjoy and joyfully observe
> traditions and are liberal in giving, especially where custom
> prescribes.
> 
> All else being equal, Virgo's enjoy being in charge.  They
see
> problems clearly and delegate easily, work hard and play with
> zest. Virgo's, bear strong allegiance to rights
> of seniority.  They willingly provide service (which embodies
> life's meaning) and expect the same from others.
> 
> vrs
> 
> Pices's are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so
> deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually
> are oblivious to the world around them.
> 
> Precise about their descriptions, Pices's will often correct
> others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is a
> bit off.  While annoying to the less concise, this fine
> discrimination ability gives Pices's so inclined a natural
> advantage as, for example, grammarians and linguists.

Reads like an astrology collumn in the newspaper.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)

[Robert J. Chassell]

If it's science at all, it's a very fluffy kind of science.

Ten or fifteen years ago, I gave Kiersey style Myers-Briggs tests to a
dozen people I knew.  I felt the results were accurate in about 7 of
those 12 cases.  So I decided it was pretty good for this kind of
topic (and no good at all if you seek only 25% error.)

What is the probability of 7 out of 12 people each choosing 1 out of
16 randomly?

I tend to doubt the Forer effect is highly important for Myers-Briggs,
although doubtless, it is somewhat important.

(According to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

The Forer effect ... is the observation that individuals will give
high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that
supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact
vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.

(The article also gives Forer's text.)

Here are the first two paragraphs of 2 of 16 MBTI profiles from
http://www.typelogic.com/; they seem to me quite different.  When
given a choice of which to choose, I doubt an ESFJ would choose to be
described as an INTP although he or she might well choose a
description closer to his or her temperament.

Guardians of birthdays, holidays and celebrations, ESFJs are
generous entertainers.  They enjoy and joyfully observe
traditions and are liberal in giving, especially where custom
prescribes.

All else being equal, ESFJs enjoy being in charge.  They see
problems clearly and delegate easily, work hard and play with
zest. ESFJs, as do most SJs, bear strong allegiance to rights
of seniority.  They willingly provide service (which embodies
life's meaning) and expect the same from others.

vrs

INTPs are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so
deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually
are oblivious to the world around them.

Precise about their descriptions, INTPs will often correct
others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is a
bit off.  While annoying to the less concise, this fine
discrimination ability gives INTPs so inclined a natural
advantage as, for example, grammarians and linguists.

-- 
Robert J. Chassell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[The Fool]

> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 
> > From: Fool On
> > 
> > > From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/5/06, The Fool wrote:
> > 
> > On 5/5/06, A person not named The Fool wrote:
> > 
> > > >
> > > > I see a glaring logical error.  The idea that *only* science
can
> > minimize
> > > > self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be
> > falsified.
> > > > There
> > > > is no logical problem with arguing that science serves these
> > purposes, but
> > > > to argue that only science can do so is just arguing from its
own
> > > > conclusion.
> > 
> > Their IS no way of knowing things without the scientific process.
> > You're just arguing religion again.
> > 
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing particularly scientific about many of the means
I
> > > > personally
> > > > use to minimize self-deception.  Of course, I could just be
kidding
> > myself
> > > > about that.
> > 
> > Why do I get the feeling most of those 'means' are related to
religion?
> 
> I didn't write that, Nick did. I think mixing up Nick's post and mine
will
> inevitably result is a combination with internal contradictions,
because
> Nick and I differ on some points. 

Those comments _were_ directed toward Nick.

>  
> > > >
> > > > I think the mistake is to *compare* the value of intuition and
> > scientific
> > > > thinking, rather than holding up some sort of Spock-like
detachment
> > and
> > > > objectivity as an ideal.  Spock is fiction.
> 
> > The claim I'll make about intuition is that sometimes a portion of
the
> > large amount of background processing that your brain does might
slip
> > through the filter your mind uses, but it is hardly a rational,
> > reasoned, and scientific process.  
> 
> Nick wrote the text you are responding to here, also.  As I think you
could
> tell from reading my post, I don't separate scientific thinking and
> intuitive thinking.
 
Again I _was_ addressing nick here.


> With all due respect, I don't think you have a feel for the
scientific
> process.  That's pretty common.  Textbooks usually organize things
after
> they've already been worked out.  They rarely give a feel for the
actual
> process.
> 
> >And also based much more around hardwired instinctual responces that
may
> >not be very good.
> 
> If they aren't goodthen it's hard to be creative.  Some people
don't
> have very good intuitions...and their guesses are often wrong. 
Others do
> have good intuitions.  It's also a matter of being able to see
patterns and
> pick up clues.  
> 

You are mixing up inteligence and creativity.  Don't even try to
pretend you understand how the brain works, because you dont:

Nodding Yes Increases Your Confidence In Your Own Opinions: 
<>

Children Of Bipolar Parents are More Creative:
<>

Love Deactivates Brain Areas For Fear, Planning, Critical Social
Assessment:
<>

Human Impulsiveness Selected For By Foraging Lifestyle?:
<>

Stimulaton Of Primate Brains Show Many Complex Behaviors Are Innate:
<> 

Gory Pictures Improve Memory Retention: 
<>

Scantily Clad Women Make High Testosterone Men Drive Lousy Bargains:
<>

Twins Study Finds Adult Religiosity Heritable:
<>

Serotonin Receptor Concentration Varies Inversely With Spirituality: 
<>
 
Pre-Schoolers Think Like Scientists: 
<>

Word Memory Shifts From Sound To Meaning As We Age: 
<>

Neurons Identified That Assign Relative Ratings To Goods: 
<>

Monkeys Prefer Gambling Risk To Sure Reward: 
<>

More Attractive Children Protected Better By Parents: 
<>

Humans Get Personality Altering Infections From Cats: 
<>

While heterosexual males are chiefly aroused by females
heterosexual females are aroused by males AND females:
<>

And I could dig through slashdot and a few other sites for more
interesting studies I remember, but I think you get the picture.

The brain does a whole lot of things, that are absolutely nonsensical. 
It also does a whole lot of things in the background that the conscious
mind isn't aware of.  Perhaps some of those things can leak through the
filtering some times, or not, but it is of dubious quality an

RE: Myers-Briggs

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of The Fool
> Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 9:20 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs
> 
> > From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > >
> > > On 5/5/06, The Fool wrote:
> 
> On 5/5/06, A person not named The Fool wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > I see a glaring logical error.  The idea that *only* science can
> minimize
> > > self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be
> falsified.
> > > There
> > > is no logical problem with arguing that science serves these
> purposes, but
> > > to argue that only science can do so is just arguing from its own
> > > conclusion.
> 
> Their IS no way of knowing things without the scientific process.
> You're just arguing religion again.
> 
> > >
> > > There's nothing particularly scientific about many of the means I
> > > personally
> > > use to minimize self-deception.  Of course, I could just be kidding
> myself
> > > about that.
> 
> Why do I get the feeling most of those 'means' are related to religion?

I didn't write that, Nick did. I think mixing up Nick's post and mine will
inevitably result is a combination with internal contradictions, because
Nick and I differ on some points. 
 
> > >
> > > I think the mistake is to *compare* the value of intuition and
> scientific
> > > thinking, rather than holding up some sort of Spock-like detachment
> and
> > > objectivity as an ideal.  Spock is fiction.


 
> The claim I'll make about intuition is that sometimes a portion of the
> large amount of background processing that your brain does might slip
> through the filter your mind uses, but it is hardly a rational,
> reasoned, and scientific process.  

Nick wrote the text you are responding to here, also.  As I think you could
tell from reading my post, I don't separate scientific thinking and
intuitive thinking.

With all due respect, I don't think you have a feel for the scientific
process.  That's pretty common.  Textbooks usually organize things after
they've already been worked out.  They rarely give a feel for the actual
process.

>And also based much more around hardwired instinctual responces that may
>not be very good.

If they aren't goodthen it's hard to be creative.  Some people don't
have very good intuitions...and their guesses are often wrong.  Others do
have good intuitions.  It's also a matter of being able to see patterns and
pick up clues.  


 
> > I've followed this thread for a bit, and I find that I organize
> things ub a
> > manner that is significantly different from what I see here.  In
> particular,
> > I think the discussion of intuitive vs. scientific thinking misses
> how
> > science actually works.
> >
> > Intuition is an important part of science.  Great scientists, such as
> > Feynman, had overwhelming intuitive ability.  Feynman is legendary
> for his
> > rough guesses being validated by experiments 10-20 years later.


> But Feynmans intuition isn't being discussed here.  

I thought intuition itself was being discussed.  

>What's being discussed is Jung's psuedo-scientific model of 'intuition' 
>(on which the MBTI bullsh!t is based around).

Since human thought is in the gray area, I don't see the problem with using
non-scientific means of understanding.  We have a scientific understanding
of the charm found in some quarks.  We do not have a scientific
understanding of the natural charm of certain people.  We have explanations,
and we tend to categorize as part of our explanations.  So, talking about
introverts and extroverts, for example, is not meaningless...even though it
is not as precise a scale as, say, electromagnetic potential.
> 
> 
> 
> You've merely trained your brain to do work that you used to do
> consciously to being done sub consciously.

How do you know what I do so much better than I do? How are you sure that
when I leap from A to J, that I am actually, subconsciously doing steps B,
C, D...etc?  If that's what I was doing, wouldn't it be much easier to do
the steps.

The process of coming up with a creative solution is not linear.  I realize
that contradicts a mechanistic understanding of human thought, but that
understanding isn't science...it is metaphysics.

> > The distinction that I see is between linear thinking and disjunctive
> > thinking.  The former goes is a systematic fashion from A to B to C.
> The
> > latter tend

Re: Myers-Briggs

[The Fool]

sed to do
consciously to being done sub consciously.

>
> But, I know that my intuition is not _that_ good.  When I check with
more
> rigorous techniques, I find that my intuitive feel isn't always
right.  The
> data can still surprise me.  When surprised, I work to recalibrate my
> intuitive feel to better match what is seen.
> 
> IMHO, intuition works best when combined with rigor.  In science at
least,
> one can make an intuitive leap to get to the idea, but one is
responsible
> for going back and connecting the dots to make sure one's intuition
is
> correct.
> 
> The distinction that I see is between linear thinking and disjunctive
> thinking.  The former goes is a systematic fashion from A to B to C. 
The
> latter tends to jump from A to J, without stopping at B, C, or D.

No, you only think it is skipping B, C and D.

Calculus wouldn't work if the underling arthimetic and algebra didn't
also work.
 
> I am a disjunctive thinker, so I do this a lot.  But, I always
consider it
> my responsibility to be able to go back and show that the jump was
valid.  I
> may merge D & E together, I may use a proof that's on a totally
different
> line, but I accept the responsibility to go back and validate my
conclusion.
> 
> Indeed, I'd argue that rigor is the best friend of true creativity. I
had
> some interesting discussions with grad. students and professors in
> philosophy concerning our respective professions.  There was
consensus that
> it was far easier to BS in philosophy than in physics, but that it
was also
> much harder to come up with something new and worthwhile.  When I get
> stumped thinking about physics/engineering, I can always take some
more data
> to help the process along.  Philosophers can't.  Testing my intuitive
leaps
> against data significantly simplifies the process of separating the
wheat
> from the chaffand allows me to start seeing the patterns that are
there.
> 
> Going back to Feynman, his most famous quote on this subject is
"science is
> the best way we have to not fool ourselves."  By insisting that we
accept as
> valid the model which best matches objective observations, we have an
> extremely strong antidote to fooling ourselves. For example,
creationism is
> a bad model for biology.  Standard biology provides a much better fit
to
> observations.
> 
> The real problem with using science ubiquitously is tied up with its
virtue:
> it deliberately limits the questions it addresses.  Science models
> observations, it does not form a basis for ethics, ontology, or
> epistemology.  For example, there is no scientific basis for the
argument
> that it is immoral to torture children for one's own pleasure.  Even
though
> we all agree on that, we cannot prove it scientifically.

I accutually would argue that is completely false.  Altuistic
punishment was selected for in humans for a reason. Pretty much
everything people claim as 'moral' is based around the selection of
some attribute.  

You just want to argue religion again tho.
 
> Finally, this leads us to the area of human thought and behavior. 
That is
> in a gray area where empirical observations can provide some
understanding,
> but not full understanding.  We don't know if someone isn't trying
enough or
> if they just cannot do it...because we cannot get "inside" another
person.
> Yet, we can see what techniques seem to work better than others.  My
wife
> knows she has ADHD, and has developed a number of coping mechanisms
for it.
> Bags of tricks, like these, can be learned.
> 
> But, when we use techniques, like this one or Myers-Briggs, we need
to do it
> with the understanding that the validity of these techniques has some
> empirical basis, but is not really proven.  

No Empirical basis would be more correct.

> For example, when I took it, it
> seemed right on several divisions, but it had me down as feeling on
> feeling/thinking.  My family thought that was a hoot. 

That's exactly how charlatanism works.  The charlatan tells you some
vague things that sound good to the person being sold snake-oil.  The
charlatan knows about the forer effect and confirmation bias, and
subjective validation.  

The MBTI Types are actually a _very slick_ form Cold Reading:
<<http://skepdic.com/coldread.html>>

Cold reading refers to a set of techniques used by professional
manipulators to get a subject to behave in a certain way or to think
that the cold reader has some sort of special ability that allows him
to "mysteriously" know things about the subject. Cold reading goes
beyond the usual tools of manipulation: suggestion and flattery. In
cold reading, salespersons, hypnotists, pros, faith healers, con men,
and some therapists bank on their subject's inc

Re: Myers-Briggs

[The Fool]

> From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On May 5, 2006, at 1:27 PM, The Fool wrote:
> 
> >> From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> On May 5, 2006, at 11:52 AM, The Fool wrote:
> >>
>  From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>
>  Ok, here are a few sites for those curious:
> 
>  And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as
>  it's time to head out):
>  http://skepdic.com/myersb.html
> >>>
> >>> MBTI is psuedo-science at its finest.
> >>
> >> OK. You're opinion. I'm OK with that. Even the slightest shred of
> > data
> >> as to why you feel this way might have elevated your smear to the
> > level
> >> of seriousness, but I'll just take at face value:  The Fool
doesn't
> > like
> >> it. My kid doesn't like spicy foods, either, for what that's
worth,
> >> which is about the same in terms of how I live my life.
> >
> > Here is a start, the first link I turn to when people start talking
up
> > nonsense:
> >
> > <>
> >
> > I could find more, (as I have in the past in different places), but
 
> > I'm
> > lazy right now.
> 
> Extraordinarily so, it would seem, as that link was present in
Deborah's
> message.

Obviously.  I've also had this particular link on my favorites menu
since the 90's.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Charlie Bell]

On 06/05/2006, at 1:53 AM, Dan Minette wrote:


Given that I so often disagree with Dan on many things, I think it  
only fair to chip in that I was lurking on this one too, and he has  
basically said what I would've...


:)

So, where are we wrong this time?

Charlie



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Myers-Briggs

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 4:21 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs
> 
> On 5/5/06, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I see a glaring logical error.  The idea that *only* science can minimize
> self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be falsified.
> There
> is no logical problem with arguing that science serves these purposes, but
> to argue that only science can do so is just arguing from its own
> conclusion.
> 
> There's nothing particularly scientific about many of the means I
> personally
> use to minimize self-deception.  Of course, I could just be kidding myself
> about that.
> 
> I think the mistake is to *compare* the value of intuition and scientific
> thinking, rather than holding up some sort of Spock-like detachment and
> objectivity as an ideal.  Spock is fiction.

I've followed this thread for a bit, and I find that I organize things ub a
manner that is significantly different from what I see here.  In particular,
I think the discussion of intuitive vs. scientific thinking misses how
science actually works.

Intuition is an important part of science.  Great scientists, such as
Feynman, had overwhelming intuitive ability.  Feynman is legendary for his
rough guesses being validated by experiments 10-20 years later.

But, of course, he also had misses.  I didn't get to talk with him, but
Shelly Glashow (a theorist who won the Nobel Prize for his role in
developing what is now called the Standard Theory said that he tended to
have several intuitive ideas a day.  Most of them he could dismiss himself.
The rest, he brought up to colleagues, who usually found fatal flaws with
them.  About once a month, they were worth publishing.

In my own case, I have worked very hard developing my own intuition.  I have
a "feel" for the transport of gammas and neutrons.  My rough arm waving
arguments usually get me in the ball park of the right answer.

But, I know that my intuition is not _that_ good.  When I check with more
rigorous techniques, I find that my intuitive feel isn't always right.  The
data can still surprise me.  When surprised, I work to recalibrate my
intuitive feel to better match what is seen.

IMHO, intuition works best when combined with rigor.  In science at least,
one can make an intuitive leap to get to the idea, but one is responsible
for going back and connecting the dots to make sure one's intuition is
correct.

The distinction that I see is between linear thinking and disjunctive
thinking.  The former goes is a systematic fashion from A to B to C.  The
latter tends to jump from A to J, without stopping at B, C, or D.

I am a disjunctive thinker, so I do this a lot.  But, I always consider it
my responsibility to be able to go back and show that the jump was valid.  I
may merge D & E together, I may use a proof that's on a totally different
line, but I accept the responsibility to go back and validate my conclusion.

Indeed, I'd argue that rigor is the best friend of true creativity. I had
some interesting discussions with grad. students and professors in
philosophy concerning our respective professions.  There was consensus that
it was far easier to BS in philosophy than in physics, but that it was also
much harder to come up with something new and worthwhile.  When I get
stumped thinking about physics/engineering, I can always take some more data
to help the process along.  Philosophers can't.  Testing my intuitive leaps
against data significantly simplifies the process of separating the wheat
from the chaffand allows me to start seeing the patterns that are there.

Going back to Feynman, his most famous quote on this subject is "science is
the best way we have to not fool ourselves."  By insisting that we accept as
valid the model which best matches objective observations, we have an
extremely strong antidote to fooling ourselves. For example, creationism is
a bad model for biology.  Standard biology provides a much better fit to
observations.

The real problem with using science ubiquitously is tied up with its virtue:
it deliberately limits the questions it addresses.  Science models
observations, it does not form a basis for ethics, ontology, or
epistemology.  For example, there is no scientific basis for the argument
that it is immoral to torture children for one's own pleasure.  Even though
we all agree on that, we cannot prove it scientifically.

Finally, this leads us to the area of human thought and behavior.  That is
in a gray area where empirical observations can provide some understanding,
but not full understanding.  We don't know if someone isn't trying enough or
if they just cannot do it...because we cannot get "inside" another person.
Yet, we c

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Nick Arnett]

On 5/5/06, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



It's no different than ennenagrams and other bullsh!t that sounds good
to the ignorant and uninformed.



So what do you think of this bit of "logic" from the skeptics' site:

"However, his typology seems to imply that science is just a point of view
and that using intuition is just as valid a way of seeing and understanding
the world and ourselves as is careful observation under controlled
conditions. Never mind that that is the only way to systematically minimize
self-deception  or prevent
identifying causes where there are none."

I see a glaring logical error.  The idea that *only* science can minimize
self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be falsified.  There
is no logical problem with arguing that science serves these purposes, but
to argue that only science can do so is just arguing from its own
conclusion.

There's nothing particularly scientific about many of the means I personally
use to minimize self-deception.  Of course, I could just be kidding myself
about that.

I think the mistake is to *compare* the value of intuition and scientific
thinking, rather than holding up some sort of Spock-like detachment and
objectivity as an ideal.  Spock is fiction.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)

[Dave Land]

On May 5, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Max Battcher wrote:


Dave Land wrote:

And, of course, each is a spectrum:


Because they are spectra there are a number of encoding schemes out  
there to try to disambiguate those that move or are near the lines,  
and some psychologists will tell you the categorizations are  
meaningless without the full test and knowledge specific choices  
within it.  (...and others will tell you taking the test is only  
every valid once or not at all or only on full moons.)


For instance, I sometimes find it useful to use xNTP, because I'm  
pretty firm as far as the NTP side of the spectrum in every test  
I've taken and generally in my judgment of the system itself says.   
The I/E I tend to flip-flop depending on several factors.  Another  
choice would be to use something like I?NTP, as the I is often more  
dominant, but again, subject to change.


Sure. I've taken to writing (on those rare occasions that it needs to  
be written -- I'm not a type-freak) ENfP, because I am only weakly on  
the "F" end of that particular spectrum.


As the Fool points out in his inimitable style, this stuff is not  
mathematics. If it's science at all, it's a very fluffy kind of  
science. Human behavior and the motivations behind it are notoriously  
difficult to quantify, frustrating most attempts to do so.


Dave "Romans 7:15-15" Land

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)

[Max Battcher]

Dave Land wrote:

And, of course, each is a spectrum:


Because they are spectra there are a number of encoding schemes out 
there to try to disambiguate those that move or are near the lines, and 
some psychologists will tell you the categorizations are meaningless 
without the full test and knowledge specific choices within it.  (...and 
others will tell you taking the test is only every valid once or not at 
all or only on full moons.)


For instance, I sometimes find it useful to use xNTP, because I'm pretty 
firm as far as the NTP side of the spectrum in every test I've taken and 
generally in my judgment of the system itself says.  The I/E I tend to 
flip-flop depending on several factors.  Another choice would be to use 
something like I?NTP, as the I is often more dominant, but again, 
subject to change.


--
--Max Battcher--
http://www.worldmaker.net/
"I'm gonna win, trust in me / I have come to save this world / and in 
the end I'll get the grrrl!" --Machinae Supremacy, Hero (Promo Track)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Dave Land]

On May 5, 2006, at 1:27 PM, The Fool wrote:


From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



On May 5, 2006, at 11:52 AM, The Fool wrote:


From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



Ok, here are a few sites for those curious:

And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as
it's time to head out):
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html


MBTI is psuedo-science at its finest.


OK. You're opinion. I'm OK with that. Even the slightest shred of

data

as to why you feel this way might have elevated your smear to the

level

of seriousness, but I'll just take at face value:  The Fool doesn't

like

it. My kid doesn't like spicy foods, either, for what that's worth,
which is about the same in terms of how I live my life.


Here is a start, the first link I turn to when people start talking up
nonsense:

<>

I could find more, (as I have in the past in different places), but  
I'm

lazy right now.


Extraordinarily so, it would seem, as that link was present in Deborah's
message. Well, as long as you didn't break a sweat, we'll just go ahead
and take your work that this single page is the World's Leading  
Authority

on the matter.


It's no different than ennenagrams and other bullsh!t that sounds good
to the ignorant and uninformed.

Now see there's this bridge I own in the new york area, that I think
you might be interested in.


You are just a font of fresh insights today.


MTBI is a great example of the forer effect, confimation bias, and
subjective validation work in people who don't know any better.


Now I can go on with my life secure in the knowledge that I am just a
person who doesn't know any better.

Dave "What's your sign" Land

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[The Fool]

> From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On May 5, 2006, at 11:52 AM, The Fool wrote:
> 
> >> From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> Ok, here are a few sites for those curious:
> >>
> >> And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as
> >> it's time to head out):
> >> http://skepdic.com/myersb.html
> >
> > MBTI is psuedo-science at its finest.
> 
> OK. You're opinion. I'm OK with that. Even the slightest shred of
data
> as to why you feel this way might have elevated your smear to the
level
> of seriousness, but I'll just take at face value:  The Fool doesn't
like
> it. My kid doesn't like spicy foods, either, for what that's worth,
> which is about the same in terms of how I live my life.

Here is a start, the first link I turn to when people start talking up
nonsense:

<>

I could find more, (as I have in the past in different places), but I'm
lazy right now.

It's no different than ennenagrams and other bullsh!t that sounds good
to the ignorant and uninformed.  

Now see there's this bridge I own in the new york area, that I think
you might be interested in..

MTBI is a great example of the forer effect, confimation bias, and
subjective validation work in people who don't know any better.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)

[Dave Land]

On May 5, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote:


OTOH, I'm split between the J and P, which makes me
feel a little better, not desiring to be known as
judgemental...even though in many ways, I am.


Some are confused by the language of MBTI, and find one or the other
terms for each of the four dimensions "pejorative" and the other
"laudatory". Neither is not intended to be either: no value judgment
is made on either end of any of the spectra.

For example, "Judging" does not mean "judgmental". It merely refers to a
preference for closure as opposed to the preference for open-ended-ness
among perceptives.

And, of course, each is a spectrum: I doubt that anybody is all
extroverted or all introverted (although I am pretty well slammed
against the rails on the extroverted side). It's not at all uncommon
to find oneself in the middle on one of the axes: I'm about halfway
between thinking and feeling -- given some conversations I've had on
that subject lately, I'd lay odds that I naturally gravitate towards
the feeling end of the scale, but that socialization has skewed me
towards thinking.

Katherine Benziger (http://www.benziger.org/), whose Benziger Thinking
Styles Assessment (BTSA) is not so very different from MTBI, writes
about a condition she calls "Falsification of Type" that leads, she
says, to much grief. I would guess that if I'm right about my
natural predilection towards feeling vs. socialization towards
thinking is valid, I probably exhibit her "Falsification of Type".

(Of course "I would guess" is a very iNtuitive thing to say, isn't
it?)

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[Dave Land]

On May 5, 2006, at 11:52 AM, The Fool wrote:


From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



Ok, here are a few sites for those curious:

And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as
it's time to head out):
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html


MBTI is psuedo-science at its finest.


OK. You're opinion. I'm OK with that. Even the slightest shred of data
as to why you feel this way might have elevated your smear to the level
of seriousness, but I'll just take at face value:  The Fool doesn't like
it. My kid doesn't like spicy foods, either, for what that's worth,
which is about the same in terms of how I live my life.

For those who would like to think about this, I enjoyed reading the
following:

http://www.timeenoughforlove.org/Evidence.htm

I cannot vouch for the web site or whether those of us more versed in
neuroscience would find this page outrageous quackery, but (before it
goes off talking about "enlightenment" and so forth) the science that
it uses to underlie its arguments seems sound.

Dave "ENFP" Land

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Myers-Briggs

[The Fool]

> From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Ok, here are a few sites for those curious:
> 
> And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as
> it's time to head out):
> http://skepdic.com/myersb.html

MBTI is psuedo-science at its finest.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)

[PAT MATHEWS]

At any rate, you still test out Idealist, and in many ways that's the most 
important part because it's the central theme of your life.


Pat, INTP but unwilling to make up my mind oh, look, a bird! BAD 
kitties!



http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/






From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Myers-Briggs (was:  Blog entry with interesting comment)
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT)

Ok, here are a few sites for those curious:
http://www.personalitypathways.com/MBTI_intro.html
http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html

And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as
it's time to head out):
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html

I do have a problem with this site's dismissal of
intuitive thinking; from my observations & experience
in the medical field, a lot of "intuition" (including
my own) is actually based on essentially sub-conscious
integration of observations with prior knowledge.
It's sort of like thinking without realizing it; it
seems almost magical at times because one isn't aware
of the processes ongoing, as they occur so swiftly.
But without a foundation of education, learned
knowledge, and prior experience, 'intuition' is as
likely to be wrong as not.

>From the first site above:
"INFJ: Seek meaning and connection in ideas,
relationships, and material possessions. Want to
understand what motivates people and are insightful
about others. Conscientious and committed to their
firm values. Develop a clear vision about how best to
serve the common good. Organized and decisive in
implementing their vision."

Hmm, pretty good except for that last bit - I am *not*
the best-organized person.

"Feeling:
Naturally seek consensus and popular opinions.
Unsettled by conflict; have almost a toxic reaction to
disharmony."

Uh, yep.

OTOH, I'm split between the J and P, which makes me
feel a little better, not desiring to be known as
judgemental...even though in many ways, I am.

"INFP:  Idealistic, loyal to their values and to
people who are important to them. Want an external
life that is congruent with their values. Curious,
quick to see possibilities, can be catalysts for
implementing ideas. Seek to understand people and to
help them fulfill their potential. Adaptable,
flexible, and accepting unless a value is threatened."

Debbi
Still A Skeptical Believer And Pragmatic Idealist Maru
;-)

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)

[Deborah Harrell]

Ok, here are a few sites for those curious:
http://www.personalitypathways.com/MBTI_intro.html
http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html

And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as
it's time to head out):
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html

I do have a problem with this site's dismissal of
intuitive thinking; from my observations & experience
in the medical field, a lot of "intuition" (including
my own) is actually based on essentially sub-conscious
integration of observations with prior knowledge. 
It's sort of like thinking without realizing it; it
seems almost magical at times because one isn't aware
of the processes ongoing, as they occur so swiftly. 
But without a foundation of education, learned
knowledge, and prior experience, 'intuition' is as
likely to be wrong as not.  

>From the first site above:
"INFJ: Seek meaning and connection in ideas,
relationships, and material possessions. Want to
understand what motivates people and are insightful
about others. Conscientious and committed to their
firm values. Develop a clear vision about how best to
serve the common good. Organized and decisive in
implementing their vision."

Hmm, pretty good except for that last bit - I am *not*
the best-organized person.

"Feeling:
Naturally seek consensus and popular opinions.
Unsettled by conflict; have almost a toxic reaction to
disharmony."

Uh, yep.
 
OTOH, I'm split between the J and P, which makes me
feel a little better, not desiring to be known as
judgemental...even though in many ways, I am.

"INFP:  Idealistic, loyal to their values and to
people who are important to them. Want an external
life that is congruent with their values. Curious,
quick to see possibilities, can be catalysts for
implementing ideas. Seek to understand people and to
help them fulfill their potential. Adaptable,
flexible, and accepting unless a value is threatened."

Debbi
Still A Skeptical Believer And Pragmatic Idealist Maru
;-)

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l