Observations of a new guy

[hubcap]

As a new member of the forum I have observed a situation to that me seems paradoxical.

Of all the MBTI types the INTJ is the most independent, yet I find a great number of the people here of the "collectivist" mindset. This seems to be quite illogical. I would expect this of several other MBTI types but not the INTJ.

What is the explanation?

[blueback]

Collectivist: the political principle of centralized social and economic control, esp. of all means of production.

I haven't noticed a trend towards that. But I also don't spend much of my time here on the political board. If I've seen a trend here, it's towards smaller government.

That being said, I have also noticed a small trend towards expert control. INTJs seem to be of the opinion that if they alone made all the decisions everything would run perfectly; that it's letting everyone else make decisions that causes all the problems. Maybe you're interpreting that as collectivist? I just call it technocracy.

Technocracy: a theory and movement, prominent about 1932, advocating control of industrial resources, reform of financial institutions, and reorganization of the social system, based on the findings of technologists and engineers.

[Synamon]

As opposed to what? Anarchist? Yeah, we have some of those here.

For starters, not everyone on this forum is from the US. Since you seem to think government taxes are "stealing", I'm not surprised that you think other people are collectivist relative to yourself. Most of the forum members call themselves Libertarians according to this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) thread.

[firebee]

In a word: "practicality".

It makes a lot more sense if you don't attempt to stuff everyone who has concerns more immediate than "establishment of a minimalist government" into a box labeled "fluffy bunny softhearted commies who wuz brainwashed by teh librul professors".

Humans form mutually-supporting social networks, and at the moment the 'government' component of that structure is configured in such a way that many things so-called "individualists" praise are intimately shaped by government regulation, subsidy, and the like. We are not close enough to a functioning minimalist state to even see what it looks like. Given this, it is not all that surprising that some INTJs -- those who have a type fundamentally concerned with "what works" -- are not interested in arguments based on the supposed virtues of said fantastical social network configuration.

And that's even leaving aside the question of whether "independence" as a trait of an individual necessarily means that one must be attached to a particular ideal government structure. But that rather depends on what you think "independence" is and why you think "collectivists" do not generally possess it. Which is a subject that I might speculate upon, but I would rather see you sink your own boat.

[Malkavia]

I have noticed that a lot of INTJs on this forum consider themselves libertarian. Whether you can be libertarian and have a "collectivist" mindset I don't know, political theories are not what I specialize in.

[Musing]

I don't see the point in being an individualist just to be one. What is more important is whether or not I've arrived at my conclusions through individual thought and have tested it against my values. If those conclusions happen to coincide with other's, then yeay, I guess they make sense to others too. I haven't all of a sudden become collectivist because they do.

[boldbidder]

As a new member of the forum I have observed a situation to that me seems paradoxical.

Of all the MBTI types the INTJ is the most independent, yet I find a great number of the people here of the "collectivist" mindset. This seems to be quite illogical. I would expect this of several other MBTI types but not the INTJ.

What is the explanation?

I posted a similar comment in a thread once upon a time in that I found it illogical for an INTJ to be a self described 'conservative'. INTJs almost by definition seek to improve all systems, perfection can never be reached, it is a pursuit. Ergo, the idea of an INTJ wanting to conserve to the present state boggles my mind.

INTJ may be a rare personality type in and of itself, but within the actual ranks you have all varieties and view points. If we all agreed then we wouldn't be frequenting this forum though. We get to debate here with others who understand (hopefully) that eviscerating an idea is not the same as eviscerating the person.

[reb]

i 'clump' with these people because this is the most intelligent conversation i can find in one place, other than bridge or a couple of neighbors i see rarely. albeit there are rare exceptions, however, that is still far above some of what i see in rl. besides, i don't have to smell bo this way.

'collectivist' lol! i'm reeling in the years....

welcome, collectivist. are there three more of you? if not, check to see if your collective has been busted up by some 'true communist'. :)

[hubcap]

As opposed to what? Anarchist? Yeah, we have some of those here.

For starters, not everyone on this forum is from the US. Since you seem to think government taxes are "stealing", I'm not surprised that you think other people are collectivist relative to yourself. Most of the forum members call themselves Libertarians according to this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) thread.

Actually, from a philosophical point of view, I view taxation as the confiscation of private property.

Libertarians are by definition "individualists". I consider myself a libertarian. My views are very Jeffersonian.

You know; small government = good

The propensity to "buy into" the social contract theory is what gives the appearance of a "collectivist" mindset.

I am in no way an anarchist. I realize some government is necessary.

I just don't like the idea of some government bureaucrat deciding what is best for "me".

[Valiyn]

You will certainly relate to alot of the users here. However, we're a group of devil advocates usually before political advocates. So the views expressed are not always our own personal views, but rather to debate the issue rationally until we're content that reason and logic is backing up the original poster's claim and/or our personal views are validated. NTs like hearing all sides of the argument before throwing their own personal views out into the winds of discussion.

[Lucid]

hubcap,

The explanation is that you have some misunderstandings regarding the MBTI. I suggest you take some time to learn more about the MBTI. Not all INTJs will have the same values that you do, be they political, social or religious. If you spend some time reading through the forum you'll find INTJs of all stripes. We have anarchists, communists, republicans, democrats, liberals, socialists, libertarians and everything else conceivable. This is true of religious beliefs, social preferences, occupations, sexual preference... everything. One of the strengths of this site is the diversity of experience and opinion which can be found here. This, combined with the INTJ preference for logical and reasoned debate is one of the things I enjoy about this forum.

What one believes has little to do with MBTI. If you want to talk to people who agree with you, this isn't necessarily the forum on which to do it. :)

[hubcap]

hubcap,

The explanation is that you have some misunderstandings regarding the MBTI. I suggest you take some time to learn more about the MBTI. Not all INTJs will have the same values that you do, be they political, social or religious. If you spend some time reading through the forum you'll find INTJs of all stripes. We have anarchists, communists, republicans, democrats, liberals, socialists, libertarians and everything else conceivable. This is true of religious beliefs, social preferences, occupations, sexual preference... everything. One of the strengths of this site is the diversity of experience and opinion which can be found here. This, combined with the INTJ preference for logical and reasoned debate is one of the things I enjoy about this forum.

What one believes has little to do with MBTI. If you want to talk to people who agree with you, this isn't necessarily the forum on which to do it. :)

I understand that all INTJ's do not share the same views on everything. I was simply commenting about what appeared to be a high concentration of collectivists which seems somewhat paradoxical to the independent nature of the INTJ.

I certainly did not come here to talk to people who agree with me. I appreciate well reasoned dialogue iin order to refine my personal views.

BTW - This is the second time you formed conclusions about my understanding based on practically no data. Is it a habit of yours to jump to conclusions like that? Or is it simply the self-assurance of an INTJ?

[Lucid]

I understand that all INTJ's do not share the same views on everything. I was simply commenting about what appeared to be a high concentration of collectivists which seems somewhat paradoxical to the independent nature of the INTJ.

I certainly did not come here to talk to people who agree with me. I appreciate well reasoned dialogue iin order to refine my personal views.

BTW - This is the second time you formed conclusions about my understanding based on practically no data. Is it a habit of yours to jump to conclusions like that? Or is it simply the self-assurance of an INTJ?

I'd say it's a combination of misunderstanding your question (which I read as, 'why doesn't everyone here agree with me?') and the self-assurance of an INTJ. My apologies. It can be grating at times. The problem with hanging out with a bunch of like minded people (if you're an INTJ) is that you have to hang out with a bunch of arrogant, sarcastic pricks.

Most on this forum identify as libertarians (if they're from the US). However, this term actually has a few different meanings (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and of course, people are such in varying degrees. There's also a high number of liberals and a number of conservatives as well. What you find depends largely on when you look and on which threads you're reading.

[hubcap]

I'd say it's a combination of misunderstanding your question (which I read as, 'why doesn't everyone here agree with me?') and the self-assurance of an INTJ. My apologies. It can be grating at times. The problem with hanging out with a bunch of like minded people (if you're an INTJ) is that you have to hang out with a bunch of arrogant, sarcastic pricks.

Most on this forum identify as libertarians (if they're from the US). However, this term actually has a few different meanings (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and of course, people are such in varying degrees. There's also a high number of liberals and a number of conservatives as well. What you find depends largely on when you look and on which threads you're reading.

All good. I have no problems with the self-assured. :)

I will attempt to refrain at all costs of coming across as an arrogant prick.

Oh yeah, I am definitely an INTJ.

[Lucid]

As an aside, some interesting data and discussion on this can be found here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and here. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) We have many libertarians, divided more or less equally between right leaning and left leaning I think.

[Hamburglar]

I wonder what it is that makes you tirade against collectivism. TJ - for instance, believed in collectivism. If he, and others, hadn't we would not have a Constitution (I'm not sure I should have to say this, but, "In order to form a more perfect Union"). Working together has been the backbone of America's success. The landing at Jamestown, Plymouth, or Mass., Westward expansion, etc.. all of these people worked together to survive in a world with no ease. Even Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet are working together, collectively, in order to create a greater good with their resources. However, more often than not, now that the land has been 'settled' to an extent (and this has been experienced by every generation of Americans) it is easy for people to sit in their lazy boys in front of the flat screens and say, "man, f- these other people, look at the kingdom I have created on my own...how dare they steal my money/liberty/freedom!". This argument is truly the lack of perception/consideration IMO.

I would prefer to do it on my own, but I recognize that is an irrational expectation. There are no Humans who have truly ever done anything individually.

[Tristan]

As an aside, some interesting data and discussion on this can be found here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and here. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) We have many libertarians, divided more or less equally between right leaning and left leaning I think.

I think the prevalence of libertarians is an internet and youth thing. I'm also pretty sure that libertarianism is a meme, like Ron Paul.

I posted in one of those polling threads just yesterday. I hated the distinction, "libertarian versus authoritarian," made by the political compass test and the thread's poll. Authoritarianism means Hitler, tanks, and secret police. Stupid. Everyone wants to do what they want, and no one loves Hitler, tanks, and secret police... not when they're breathing down their neck. I would much rather see something that tested the extent to which people would be willing to let authority (or anything else) realize the ideal world they'd want to live in. Or their penchant for submission to what they view as the good of others, versus the good of themselves.

[hubcap]

I wonder what it is that makes you tirade against collectivism. TJ - for instance, believed in collectivism. If he, and others, hadn't we would not have a Constitution (I'm not sure I should have to say this, but, "In order to form a more perfect Union"). Working together has been the backbone of America's success. The landing at Jamestown, Plymouth, or Mass., Westward expansion, etc.. all of these people worked together to survive in a world with no ease. Even Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet are working together, collectively, in order to create a greater good with their resources. However, more often than not, now that the land has been 'settled' to an extent (and this has been experienced by every generation of Americans) it is easy for people to sit in their lazy boys in front of the flat screens and say, "man, f- these other people, look at the kingdom I have created on my own...how dare they steal my money/liberty/freedom!". This argument is truly the lack of perception/consideration IMO.

I would prefer to do it on my own, but I recognize that is an irrational expectation. There are no Humans who have truly ever done anything individually.
As with everything it is about the degree of collectivism. Noone I am aware of has actually advocated the idea that he can live, thrive and prosper without interaction with other individuals. On the other hand we do have plenty of cases where those with a collectivist mindset want to tell everyone else how to take care of their business. It is ultimately about control.

Do you want to put yourself under the control of a government bureaucrat or do you want to retain free will in personal matters? There are plenty of folks attempting to legislate what you can eat, drink, or smoke...........ie personal consumption.

Stereotypically the "right" wants to tell others how to behave in "moral" matters while those on the "left" want to tell others how to behave in "economic" matters.

Personally, I think it is better to let individuals make those decisions by pursuing their own self-interests.

BTW - Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that some form of government was necessary, but if you read the Declaration of Independence you would know why Jefferson believed government was necessary...............We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Feel free to give up your liberty, just don't expect me to give up mine.

[LaoTzu]

I just don't like the idea of some government bureaucrat deciding what is best for "me".

I think this is a misnomer.
Firstly, I still decide what I want to do. nobody's telling me to do X. I still decide if I want X.Hating someone for trying to find a more efficient system isn't my style... Everyone has to follow some form of rules governing behavior. Even in a lawless and anarchic society there are social norms that will be followed.
I think you hate that faceless bureaucrat a little too much. You envision that bureaucrat as 'enjoying' his/her power too much... even the idea that the bureaucrat HAS power is annoying to you...

It's basically putting an 'evil' face on someone you don't know a thing about.

Don't watch the perceptions, just watch the actions. You will see that government is actually responsive and is afraid of the people. Why do you think they lie so much? :)

[hubcap]

I think this is a misnomer.
Firstly, I still decide what I want to do. nobody's telling me to do X. I still decide if I want X.Hating someone for trying to find a more efficient system isn't my style... Everyone has to follow some form of rules governing behavior. Even in a lawless and anarchic society there are social norms that will be followed.
I think you hate that faceless bureaucrat a little too much. You envision that bureaucrat as 'enjoying' his/her power too much... even the idea that the bureaucrat HAS power is annoying to you...

It's basically putting an 'evil' face on someone you don't know a thing about.

Don't watch the perceptions, just watch the actions. You will see that government is actually responsive and is afraid of the people. Why do you think they lie so much? :)
Hate is much too strong a word.

I have dealt with government bureaucracy all too often. Quite frankly I detest going to have my drivers license renewed. The wonderful people there act like they are doing you a favor.

I think the U.S. Post Office is a wonderful example of the inefficiency of government. Compare the U.S. Post Office to Federal Express or UPS.................Both UPS and Fed-Ex operate at a profit while the Post Office continues to lose money annually.............typical.

[jtcambridge]

I posted a similar comment in a thread once upon a time in that I found it illogical for an INTJ to be a self described 'conservative'. INTJs almost by definition seek to improve all systems, perfection can never be reached, it is a pursuit. Ergo, the idea of an INTJ wanting to conserve to the present state boggles my mind.

INTJ may be a rare personality type in and of itself, but within the actual ranks you have all varieties and view points. If we all agreed then we wouldn't be frequenting this forum though. We get to debate here with others who understand (hopefully) that eviscerating an idea is not the same as eviscerating the person.

Conservative can be liberal. What is liberalism but John Locke? It's really a struggle between political philosophies, not labels created by politicians to mobilize the masses. I personally don't know how any INTJ here could be satisfied classifying themself as a party member. I can't stand the limited scope of it all.

[Hamburglar]

we do have plenty of cases where those with a collectivist mindset want to tell everyone else how to take care of their business

Personally, I think it is better to let individuals make those decisions by pursuing their own self-interests.

Feel free to give up your liberty, just don't expect me to give up mine.

I edited for clarity.

The Fundamental Liberal Principle holds that restrictions on liberty must be justified, and because he accepts this, we can understand Hobbes as espousing a liberal political theory. But Hobbes is at best a qualified liberal, for he also argues that drastic limitations on liberty can be justified. Paradigmatic liberals such as Locke not only advocate the Fundamental Liberal Principle, but also maintain that justified limitations on liberty are fairly modest. Only a limited government can be justified; indeed, the basic task of government is to protect the equal liberty of citizens. Thus John Rawls's first principle of justice: ‘Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive system of equal basic liberty compatible with a similar system for all’ [Link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)]

So, I would ask on what continuum are you measuring your liberty, 1-10??? My point is that you are only presenting your opinion w/out substantiation to the point; which is how much is your liberty being restricted, and has it been properly justified? So you can be a Lockean liberal, who respects the rights of a limited government, you have not objectively proven that the US government is unduly restricting your liberty and has inadequately justified their actions. By definition a collective of individuals, who came together to agree upon a social contract, by the authority vested in the constitution have the authority to restrain your liberty without your direct consent. You have the authority to convince others to vote them out of office and support those who hold your views. The problem for you is that some people are willing to give up more liberty than you for whatever reason they feel fit. So if people feel, for instance, that there is a huge disparity of wealth, and unequal access to health insurance/care they will vote to constrain the liberties of others to promote their own. This may seem unfair, but it is not true to claim that it unjust or illegal. They are playing by the rules, just as much as you were when you, "amassed more wealth than [I] have ever earned".

[hubcap]

The entire purpose of government as envisioned by the Founders is summed up in the one sentence of the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The reason for government to exist is to secure the unalienable rights of men. When the goverment deprives men of those rights it is by definition unjustifiable, whether the majority of voters were in favor of the decision or not. The liberty of individuals is the foundation of our government.

You raise the issue of "unequal access to health insurance/care". OK let us look at that from a different perspective. You seem to feel that everyone should have health insurance. What about people that can afford to have health insurance but choose to buy other things instead? Now they come down with cancer and they have no health insurance. Do you think that the rest of us are somehow obligated to pay for their healthcare? Personally, I do not. That individual made choices about what was most important for them as an individual.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In addition, some of the 46 million could theoretically afford health coverage, but chose not to purchase any. In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. In fact, as Sally Pipes notes in the Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, those making more than $75,000 per year are part of the fastest growing segment of the uninsured population.

[Hamburglar]

The Declaration of Independence is not the legal and supreme document of the land, and by extension the United States Government. It established a "legal" basis upon which a government would be founded the Art. of Confed., and subsequently the ConstitutionOTUS.
Anyhow...The constitution which legally defines how the government will exist, and what powers it holds, defines the inalienable rights of men,

"The Congress shall have power; [...]To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. " (Article I, Section 8)

Therefore, you have no liberty. Liberties you enjoy are those which the government feels you ought to enjoy. See US Constitution - Article V + Amendments I-XXVII.





Hamburglar added to this post, 3 minutes and 52 seconds later...

Do you think that the rest of us are somehow obligated to pay for their healthcare? Personally, I do not. That individual made choices about what was most important for them as an individual.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In addition, some of the 46 million could theoretically afford health coverage, but chose not to purchase any. In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. In fact, as Sally Pipes notes in the Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, those making more than $75,000 per year are part of the fastest growing segment of the uninsured population.

No- I think as a collective gesture of good will, compassion, common purpose, and decency all Americans should all pay for their fellow citizen's health care (aka Single Payer). To be sure there will be freeloaders, but there are freeloaders now who cheat on their taxes!

[themuzicman]

You're not observing a personality type, but rather the inexperience of youth trying to use logic and philosophy without the benefit of wisdom and history and learning from others.

INTJs would probably lean more towards libertarianism, as it is independent and rejects as much authority as it can. Some will go liberal just because it sounds utopian an idyllic and there is actually a major political party that embraces it, and the practical side says that the libertarian party isn't going anywhere, at least in the US.

When one begins to look at the track record of liberalism and socialism, both presently and historically, then the idealism begins to wear off and liberalism isn't so appealing anymore.

But that takes time and education, which is what liberals are trying to avoid for the youth in our nation.

[Hamburglar]

When one begins to look at the track record of liberalism and socialism, both presently and historically,

then the idealism begins to wear off and liberalism isn't so appealing anymore.

But that takes time and education, which is what liberals are trying to avoid for the youth in our nation.

point 1=liberal Liberals are not anything the same as socialist Liberals.
Point 2=those particular flip/floppers are weak minded individuals who would rather be greedy than pay for the idealism they espoused in their youth.
point 3=Please refine your argument and explain with reference where and how liberals are dismantling the education system.

[hubcap]

The Declaration of Independence is not the legal and supreme document of the land, and by extension the United States Government. It established a "legal" basis upon which a government would be founded the Art. of Confed., and subsequently the ConstitutionOTUS.
Anyhow...The constitution which legally defines how the government will exist, and what powers it holds, defines the inalienable rights of men,

"The Congress shall have power; [...]To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. " (Article I, Section 8)
The Declaration of Independence gives insight into the Founding Fathers view of government. It was their opinion that the reason for government to exist was to ensure individual liberty.

Therefore, you have no liberty. Liberties you enjoy are those which the government feels you ought to enjoy. See US Constitution - Article V + Amendments I-XXVII.
You incorrectly interpret the purpose of the Constitution as well as what it says. The purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT the scope of the Federal government. Please refer to Amendment 9 of the Bill of Rights:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

No- I think as a collective gesture of good will, compassion, common purpose, and decency all Americans should all pay for their fellow citizen's health care (aka Single Payer). To be sure there will be freeloaders, but there are freeloaders now who cheat on their taxes!
Very easy to take this position since you are spending OTHER people's money.

Yes, a fair number of those who cheat on their taxes are now working for the present administration.

[themuzicman]

point 1=liberal Liberals are not anything the same as socialist Liberals.

Liberal liberals will tend to be more libertarian, if my understanding is correct. in the US "Liberal" = "Sociallist liberal"

Point 2=those particular flip/floppers are weak minded individuals who would rather be greedy than pay for the idealism they espoused in their youth.

LOL...

point 3=Please refine your argument and explain with reference where and how liberals are dismantling the education system.

I never said dismantling. Indeed US liberals (and I suspect all socialist liberals) want the education system under their control.

[Zsych]

I posted a similar comment in a thread once upon a time in that I found it illogical for an INTJ to be a self described 'conservative'. INTJs almost by definition seek to improve all systems, perfection can never be reached, it is a pursuit. Ergo, the idea of an INTJ wanting to conserve to the present state boggles my mind.

INTJ may be a rare personality type in and of itself, but within the actual ranks you have all varieties and view points. If we all agreed then we wouldn't be frequenting this forum though. We get to debate here with others who understand (hopefully) that eviscerating an idea is not the same as eviscerating the person.

I think that before you decide that you want to improve something. You need to understand it. Government and societies are complex, and creating a solution to problems that doesn't cause unwanted side-effects gets increasingly difficult as the magnitude of the system you're dealing with increases. I consider myself a conservative. Not because I want the current system retained, but rather because I don't want it changed thoughtlessly. Yes, give me the job, and I'll develop a system that works better than the current one :) God knows the system sucks. But really, if there is change, it must not be made by the mindless massess in the form of massive trends that have no long term thought underlying them.

Actually, from a philosophical point of view, I view taxation as the confiscation of private property.

Libertarians are by definition "individualists". I consider myself a libertarian. My views are very Jeffersonian.

You know; small government = good

The propensity to "buy into" the social contract theory is what gives the appearance of a "collectivist" mindset.

I am in no way an anarchist. I realize some government is necessary.

I just don't like the idea of some government bureaucrat deciding what is best for "me".

Understandable. There's a matter of benefits vs. cost. The government allows you to live your life how you want it (up to a degree). Taxes are what you pay for the services that you are provided. The only matter of annoyance is whether the system uses resources efficiently, and as you say, whether the people making choices are people you could trust to make intelligent choices - which is not how most of us view bureaucrats.

Bureaucracy - The rule of the chair. The term used to represent people making decisions from afar, without understanding the problems they were talking about. Still, there are limits to how well the system as a whole could be made to serve individuals. That it could be much better I don't doubt.

[firebee]

You're not observing a personality type, but rather the inexperience of youth trying to use logic and philosophy without the benefit of wisdom and history and learning from others.

Or of using wisdom and history and learning from others, yet inconveniently coming to conclusions other than your own.

Tragic, this.


LOL...


How many years will it take, before I can become such a paragon of mature rationality?

But seriously, I think that you and I would both agree that espousing idealistic beliefs so long as it is fashionable and scores one chicks, but vanishing in a cloud of smoke as soon as the actual work required to implement said beliefs becomes apparent, is not exactly an indicator of virtue.


I never said dismantling. Indeed US liberals (and I suspect all socialist liberals) want the education system under their control.

It seems fairly reasonable to guess that, given that it is a fairly common desire across many political / cultural affiliations. Particularly the one-true-way sorts, but ultimately pretty much everyone has something that they're a bit "one-true-way" about, even if it's merely the value of open inquiry.

That said, what you are claiming is that these here "liberals" are -- presumably, uniquely -- "trying to avoid for the youth in our nation". Are you going to support that claim, or are we meant to just take it as given that "daddy knows best"?

[Ray9]

Of all the MBTI types the INTJ is the most independent, yet I find a great number of the people here of the "collectivist" mindset. This seems to be quite illogical. I would expect this of several other MBTI types but not the INTJ.

What is the explanation?

I have noticed this as well. However, I've noticed that the most egregious of these types refer to themselves as "students" in their profiles. Makes you wonder what they're being fed by their professors. It's common knowlege that the modern educative intelligencia receives all or most of its income from the collectivist welfare state in the form of taxation both local and federal, so it's little wonder that they would promote socialist ideals to their students. They seem like children to me. I can tell my grandchildren not to touch something hot but they have to learn for themselves. Hopefully they won't get burned too badly.

[firebee]

However, I've noticed that the most egregious of these types refer to themselves as "students" in their profiles. Makes you wonder what they're being fed by their professors.

Speaking for myself, a person who looked at my profile and used a little thought rather than immediately applying a hackneyed conservative stereotype could probably guess, at least in general terms, what I am being fed by my professors.

But do tell me. I am mortally afflicted by curiosity as to what exactly you think I am doing as a student.

[hubcap]

But do tell me. I am mortally afflicted by curiosity as to what exactly you think I am doing as a student.
You didn't ask me this, but after looking at your profile I would say that as a student you are consuming Coors beer.;)

But if you're going to school in Boulder it is probably some Marxist drivel.

[Ray9]

Speaking for myself, a person who looked at my profile and used a little thought rather than immediately applying a hackneyed conservative stereotype could probably guess, at least in general terms, what I am being fed by my professors.

But do tell me. I am mortally afflicted by curiosity as to what exactly you think I am doing as a student.


It's probably a generational thing. Socialist ideas seem to have a wide appeal to the young. That's what I was getting at. Most of the professors I had were appalled at Woodstock. Today a lot of students are taught by professors who were at Woodstock. I don't know what you're learning as a student. I just can't get Ward Churchill out of my mind.

[blueback]

... a box labeled "fluffy bunny softhearted commies who wuz brainwashed by teh librul professors".

The problem with hanging out with a bunch of like minded people (if you're an INTJ) is that you have to hang out with a bunch of arrogant, sarcastic pricks.

Teh LULZ ar gud
Government and societies are complex, and creating a solution to problems that doesn't cause unwanted side-effects gets increasingly difficult as the magnitude of the system you're dealing with increases.
...ultimately pretty much everyone has something that they're a bit "one-true-way" about, even if it's merely the value of open inquiry.
I agree.

What I enjoy most about political arguments is that people are always ready to assign simple labels to others, but rarely accept the simple labels others assign to them. When someone calls them a liberal, they have a dozen reasons why they're a better liberal than anyone else, or why they're not really a liberal because of these dozen things, or what have you. When they call someone else a liberal it is because of one or two things they think the other person thinks and completely ignores the dozen reason the other person disagrees with the label.

I suggest we skip the arguments over labels, and stick to arguments over specific problems.

[firebee]

You didn't ask me this, but after looking at your profile I would say that as a student you are consuming Coors beer.;)

Only for symbolic purposes, and that rarely (which reminds me; at some point I actually do need to get around to said symbolic Coors consumption). When I drink local it's usually GCB.


But if you're going to school in Boulder it is probably some Marxist drivel.

Actually, were I going to school in Boulder it would probably be for the same thing I'm studying here. And I'd probably be living in Boulder, given that it is a 45-minute drive over foothills of death to get there from here (I'm dating at least one person who lives there, hence the fairly definitive knowledge of this point).

It's probably a generational thing. Socialist ideas seem to have a wide appeal to the young.

It is something of a generational thing, and I think it follows a certain cycle. From what I see, the generation that gave birth to mine (although my personal parents were somewhat different) was of the type "liberals when young who become more conservative as they age". This gives rise to stereotypes such as the ones that seem to inform themuzicman -- the concept that people of the liberal persuasion must necessarily be young, inexperienced, and naive. However, as the natural cycle turns, my generation seems to be more characterized as being "conservatives who become more liberal as they age".

And, regrettably, I'm not really all that young anymore.


I don't know what you're learning as a student. I just can't get Ward Churchill out of my mind.

I don't know much about Ward Churchill, but I think that the reputation of colleges as being primarily places of liberal indoctrination and secondarily places where intoxicants are consumed is somewhat exaggerated. Certainly this is so in my case. I'm currently studying for my masters in electrical engineering at a school dedicated to applied science, with historical ties to the extractive industries. The keynote speaker at my undergrad commencement was the president of Schlumberger Oilfield Services, to give you an idea. If anything, the student body skews conservative -- but in any case, we don't exactly have a huge surplus of time to be Marxist in or to do much more than talk about the possibility of drinking.

Between the content of my BS and the four years working in industry, I don't think I've gotten a whiff of academic study of the humanities since about 2001. And that was not exactly crunchy granola thinking, either.

[IrishGuy]

Some will go liberal just because it sounds utopian an idyllic and there is actually a major political party that embraces it, and the practical side says that the libertarian party isn't going anywhere, at least in the US.

When one begins to look at the track record of liberalism and socialism, both presently and historically, then the idealism begins to wear off and liberalism isn't so appealing anymore.

The same thing happens with conservative ideology as well. I think that's why the liberals and conservatives tend to cycle in and out of power. They become corrupt/incompetent or the flaws (as far as I'm concerned all political philosophies have serious flaws when implemented in pure form) in their political ideology begin to wear on people/cause problems.

I have noticed this as well. However, I've noticed that the most egregious of these types refer to themselves as "students" in their profiles. Makes you wonder what they're being fed by their professors. It's common knowlege that the modern educative intelligencia receives all or most of its income from the collectivist welfare state in the form of taxation both local and federal, so it's little wonder that they would promote socialist ideals to their students. They seem like children to me. I can tell my grandchildren not to touch something hot but they have to learn for themselves. Hopefully they won't get burned too badly.

Still bitter about that immigration err..."Mexican government" dispute (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)? Anyways, as a Biological Sciences student at a University I can say that in my experience there has been very little political or social indoctrination going on. The only real political statement I've heard happened at the start of Evolutionary Biology. The professor went over evolutionary theory and then mentioned that "there is another theory out there called 'intelligent design' that conflicts with evolutionary theory. It's basis is that organisms are too complicated to have arisen from evolutionary processes even though there is overwhelming evidence to support evolutionary theory. Frankly, 'intelligent design' is a crackpot theory with no evidence to support it but I'm obligated to tell you that the alternative theory exists. Now, moving onto the real science...."

Now the professors statement is only political in that supporters of "intelligent design" tend to be on the right and not on the left. I can't speak for all of the other majors, but I do not personally know anyone from any major whose political ideology has changed as a result of a professor. In fact most people's political ideologies seem to be reinforced. I would guess this is due to the many clubs/fraternities/sororities that students can join. Basically, I think students join like minded clubs etc. and their opinions are reinforced as a result.

It's probably a generational thing. Socialist ideas seem to have a wide appeal to the young. That's what I was getting at. Most of the professors I had were appalled at Woodstock. Today a lot of students are taught by professors who were at Woodstock. I don't know what you're learning as a student. I just can't get Ward Churchill out of my mind.

Actually one of my professors was at Woodstock. She stated to the class that in retrospect, Woodstock was a mess and that it is okay for students to enjoy their freedom, but there are costs and expectations of responsibility for people our age. Then she went on to further enforce her point by giving examples of employers firing/refusing to hire people our age because of pictures on their Facebook pages depicting raucous behavior.

At the University that I attend students also have the opportunity to anonymously evaluate their instructors for department review. Thus, if a professor made an offensive statement a student could report it in this evaluation. Now obviously the people reading and judging the evaluation could choose to do nothing, but any body of power can choose to do nothing about something. That kind of problem is difficult to eliminate.

Bottom line is that in my experience professors have stuck to the course curriculum. I could see a professors political bias becoming an issue in a Political Sciences class, but by and large the opportunities for professors to push a political agenda onto students tend to be few in number.

[boldbidder]

I think that before you decide that you want to improve something. You need to understand it. Government and societies are complex, and creating a solution to problems that doesn't cause unwanted side-effects gets increasingly difficult as the magnitude of the system you're dealing with increases. I consider myself a conservative. Not because I want the current system retained, but rather because I don't want it changed thoughtlessly. Yes, give me the job, and I'll develop a system that works better than the current one :) God knows the system sucks. But really, if there is change, it must not be made by the mindless massess in the form of massive trends that have no long term thought underlying them.


Change doesn't need to be radical in most cases. I'm a software guy by trade, rarely do we get a chance to do a total re-write (radical change), most often we do iterative development making incremental improvements. Incremental improvements work very well, everything needs several iterations before they get it right, we can easily apply the same principles to government and governance. With that said, a well thought out radical re-write can work well too, typically this is because the existing system is so abysmal that even a jarring change will be accepted.

[Hamburglar]

Change doesn't need to be radical in most cases. I'm a software guy by trade, rarely do we get a chance to do a total re-write (radical change), most often we do iterative development making incremental improvements. Incremental improvements work very well, everything needs several iterations before they get it right, we can easily apply the same principles to government and governance. With that said, a well thought out radical re-write can work well too, typically this is because the existing system is so abysmal that even a jarring change will be accepted.

IT and politics are emerging as very oddly compatible fields/bedfellows.

[ElstonGunn]

I just don't like the idea of some government bureaucrat deciding what is best for "me".

Even in matters that you, as a single individual, have no power to affect? Would you be in favor of an industry dumping carcinogenic waste into your drinking water supply because that's more profitable than disposing of it properly? Then once you develop pancreatic cancer, would you support your health insurance company's right to drop your coverage because they found a 20-year old form where you forgot to mention that you had a pimple when you were 17, which they classify as a pre-existing condition that warrants recision of your coverage?


Feel free to give up your liberty, just don't expect me to give up mine.

Liberty to do what? Believing that some government is necessary, I'd guess that you don't think I should be able to kill you and face no punishment for it. I also probably shouldn't be able to steal your private property and expect to keep it. If that's true, then you have already drawn a line somewhere. Where exactly is it? Do I have the liberty to falsify my company's financial records and bilk the investors out of millions of dollars for my own gain? Can I manufacture cars that explode when someone so much as looks at the gas tank the wrong way?

Maybe you'd say that the market will take care of those problems and I'll eventually be run out of business, but I think it's pretty damn despicable to sacrifice other people's lives and well-being just because you don't want to be regulated. What if you were the first person to get blown up in a Ford Pinto, or the first person do become sterile and impotent from exposure to improperly disposed radioactive waste? Would it comfort you to know that the market will eventually take care of the situation (until the next person manufactures something that is unsafe or dumps toxins in a new area, at least)?


I think the U.S. Post Office is a wonderful example of the inefficiency of government. Compare the U.S. Post Office to Federal Express or UPS.................Both UPS and Fed-Ex operate at a profit while the Post Office continues to lose money annually.............typical.

The post office is a government service. It's not designed to be a cash cow for the government. And anyways, having a guy come to your house and take a letter anywhere in the country for 44 cents is a pretty good deal. What does FedEx charge you for that same basic service?


When one begins to look at the track record of liberalism and socialism, both presently and historically, then the idealism begins to wear off and liberalism isn't so appealing anymore.

Yep. The conservative side has never done anything wrong. That's why corporatism is so great. What's that other term for it, though.... Oh yeah, "Facism." How'd that work out? That was a boon to society, wasn't it?

Look, both sides have done a lot of horrible things. To cherry pick the bad things that people on the left have done, for one thing, would at least be a step up from what you're doing. At least you'd be attempting to support your broken-record style assertion that everything liberal is inherently bad. But it would still be intellectually dishonest to focus only on the bad side of the things you dislike and only on the good side of what you do like.


Yes, a fair number of those who cheat on their taxes are now working for the present administration.

And you laud them for it, don't you? After all,

Actually, from a philosophical point of view, I view taxation as the confiscation of private property.

And if you believe what's in the Declaration of Independence, it is the duty of the governed to oppose institutions that are unjust. Right?


I have noticed this as well. However, I've noticed that the most egregious of these types refer to themselves as "students" in their profiles. Makes you wonder what they're being fed by their professors. It's common knowlege that the modern educative intelligencia receives all or most of its income from the collectivist welfare state in the form of taxation both local and federal, so it's little wonder that they would promote socialist ideals to their students. They seem like children to me. I can tell my grandchildren not to touch something hot but they have to learn for themselves. Hopefully they won't get burned too badly.

Yeah, I dream of an ideal world, where only the truly intelligent-- you know, the reactionary and the uneducated-- are the people who run things.

[hubcap]

Even in matters that you, as a single individual, have no power to affect? Would you be in favor of an industry dumping carcinogenic waste into your drinking water supply because that's more profitable than disposing of it properly? Then once you develop pancreatic cancer, would you support your health insurance company's right to drop your coverage because they found a 20-year old form where you forgot to mention that you had a pimple when you were 17, which they classify as a pre-existing condition that warrants recision of your coverage?
It would be a violation of someone elses' liberty to dump carcinogenic waste into the drinking water supply. It is a legitimate function of government to protect individual liberty. So your rant is a total misrepresentation of my views.

Liberty to do what? Believing that some government is necessary, I'd guess that you don't think I should be able to kill you and face no punishment for it. I also probably shouldn't be able to steal your private property and expect to keep it. If that's true, then you have already drawn a line somewhere. Where exactly is it? Do I have the liberty to falsify my company's financial records and bilk the investors out of millions of dollars for my own gain? Can I manufacture cars that explode when someone so much as looks at the gas tank the wrong way?
Actually no to pretty much everything you've stated as they are a complete misrepresentation of my views. To defraud someone of there personal property is a violation of their liberty.

To use the expression of our moderator - Please stop with the "hand waving". You obviously have no idea what my views are, so please stop misrepresenting them with your emotional outbursts.

[Tristan]

point 3=Please refine your argument and explain with reference where and how liberals are dismantling the education system.

"Liberals" in general merely have opinions on education; it is far more useful to examine Democrat lawmakers, and liberal workers within the system.

From what I can tell, the lawmakers talk the sweeping game about improving the quality of education, and they "own" public education as an issue, but they legislate based on the comparatively short-term needs of the most focused lobbying apparatus: the NEA. Of its $300 million-dollar budget, supported by teachers who in most states are required to unionize, the bulk goes to pressure the states, but $90 million goes to Washington. Two-thirds of the Washington money pays really high-profile lobbyists, who command two teachers' salaries each on average but range up to $400,000, and the rest gets dispersed in a wide range of liberal groups which have nothing to do with education. The point of the teachers union is to keep teachers from being underpaid or fired. Because of the union's progress on these fronts, a school literally cannot fire an incompetent teacher. Good teachers also have to carry the weight for the poor ones.

The short-term focus of public education has crippled it, and the short term focus is linked to liberal ideas and peoples' natural disregard of the long term consequences of their actions. To protect them from abuse in the short term, liberalism insulated wayward students from teachers' discipline. To protect their jobs in the short term, liberalism insulated poor teachers from administrators' discipline. To promote uniform school quality in the short term, liberalism entrenched state and federal bureaucracies that create staggering long-term inefficiency and mixed-up priorities. Public schools are not answerable to client parents and children in the way that private schools are. They are answerable to the state board, and be damned to the clients. The public education system is a top-heavy feudal pyramid where no one is answerable to the people below them; respect, accountability, and attention are one-way, upward streams that proceed towards the state and federal legislators.

Even if liberals did not specifically set up the Department of Education to resemble a feudal society, their methods' short-term focus ensured nothing less.

I lay these grievances at the feet of Democrat lawmakers only because it's their system. They are the ones residing on the top of the pyramid, milking money and votes from it.

[ElstonGunn]

It would be a violation of someone elses' liberty to dump carcinogenic waste into the drinking water supply. It is a legitimate function of government to protect individual liberty. So your rant is a total misrepresentation of my views.


Actually no to pretty much everything you've stated as they are a complete misrepresentation of my views. To defraud someone of there personal property is a violation of their liberty.

To use the expression of our moderator - Please stop with the "hand waving". You obviously have no idea what my views are, so please stop misrepresenting them with your emotional outbursts.

I like your use of the idea that I'm ranting emotionally, but setting that part aside, you're actually highlighting the point I was making. Your liberty cannot come at the expense of someone else's liberty. That much sounds simple enough, and I have a hard time imagining how anyone would disagree with that statement.

But the problem with it is that it's too vague. How do you define the terms "liberty" and "freedom to act"? It's easy in a clear example like causing immediate bodily harm to another person or breaking into someone's house and taking his lawfully-owned possessions. Those actions are obviously no good and shouldn't be protected.

What about situations that are less clear? What if I have a high market share on a certain essential product in an industry with prohibitively high entry costs, and it allows me to set the price of that product at whatever level I want, or at least at a high enough level to essentially rip people off, but not quite so high that people will be motivated enough to do what they need to do to start a rival firm that could effectively compete with mine? Am I infringing on other people's economic freedom in that situation, or am I just a savvy businessman who's doing nothing wrong?

What if I run a large corporation that makes fighter jets? It be limiting my freedom to say that I couldn't contribute and lobby to a political official who favors an aggressive international defense policy, but at the same time, I have a vested interest in making sure that there is a big market for my product. Would it be right to allow my company to contribute money that could end up encouraging an action that would lead to the death of soldiers and foreign civilians, in the name of my balance sheet and economic prosperity? If a war breaks out, I'm not technically the one who started it. And if people don't like it, they could vote the politicians behind it out of office. Is that a legitimate defense on my part, or is it a weak justification?

Or what if I import raw materials from China to manufacture my product, and it turns out that there is a chance that they could have lead in them? Should I not be required to test for that before putting the product into the market, just because the required tests and wasted supplies would cost me more than paying a few out-of-court settlements to the parents whose kids I crippled? If the parents are willing to accept those settlements, doesn't that imply that they're satisfied with my decision to put the product out anyways, and that other people don't have any right to be morally outraged on their behalf?

The world isn't as simple as libertarians and free market capitalists think that it is. It's not as simple as socialists and environmentalists think that it is. There isn't any ideology that has the right answer to everything. To go around saying that there should be some undefined "minimum level" of government to protect basic freedoms and expect everything else to work out on its own is just as stupid as going around saying that the government should solve every problem that every person has. Unless people can demonstrate that their ideas are the best possible way to solve a problem, all they're doing is patting themselves on the back and raising themselves above everyone who disagrees with them.

[hubcap]

The world isn't as simple as libertarians and free market capitalists think that it is. It's not as simple as socialists and environmentalists think that it is. There isn't any ideology that has the right answer to everything. To go around saying that there should be some undefined "minimum level" of government to protect basic freedoms and expect everything else to work out on its own is just as stupid as going around saying that the government should solve every problem that every person has. Unless people can demonstrate that their ideas are the best possible way to solve a problem, all they're doing is patting themselves on the back and raising themselves above everyone who disagrees with them.

I completely agree with you on this.

My point of view is that I think "principles" should guide us as we work out the nuances of the system. The principles I use are libertarian.

[Hamburglar]

libertarianism is not a principle it is an ideology. Principle connotes some sort of truth to it. Ideologies by nature are unproven since none exist in a pure form. This can easily be understood if you consider that every person perceives the ideology a little differently based on their experience of society.

There are no universally accepted principles, so to speak, only normative judgments.

Obviously there are laws, but as evidenced by crime they are not universally accepted.

[hubcap]

Would you like to continue argueing semantics?

[Aronnax]

Would you like to continue argueing semantics?

Wasn't that the point of the thread in the first place?

We're constructing artificial lines here; "Collectivist" "Liberal" " "Libertarian" "Corporatism" "Facism" are all labels that have been thrown out over the course of this thread. There's always a point where these kinds of discussions devolve into semantics because the lines that separate the labels aren't that clear when examined closely.

The fact that you began with vague generalizations only accelerated the process. The issue of "hand waving" was inevitable; when you fail to clearly define your position the task is left for others to complete in order for the conversation to progress.

[hubcap]

My personal view is that "individual liberty" is the single most important factor to consider when discussing a "social system".

Individual - 1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
2. a person: a strange individual.
3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.

liberty - 1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

Is that specific enough?

[Ool]

Actually, from a philosophical point of view, I view taxation as the confiscation of private property.

No one’s forcing you to live in the country that’s taxing you. You can always move out and try and find some island of your own somewhere.

And if you don’t, conquer an island that’s already populated and confiscate all their private property! Then you’re all set: No more taxes.

Libertarians are by definition "individualists". I consider myself a libertarian. My views are very Jeffersonian.

Libertarians are more like rebellious teenagers, who think they own the house, think that parental rules are tyrannical and that they would do fine without any parental support at all, all while spending their allowances and eating food from the fridge that they didn’t stack.

You know; small government = good

Jefferson’s vision was one of a non-industrial agrarian society. How are your hoeing and tilling and scything skills?

And having slaves is cheating. Jefferson wouldn’t have wanted you to have any, even though he himself did…

The propensity to "buy into" the social contract theory is what gives the appearance of a "collectivist" mindset.

Yes, only a hive-mind pod-person would want to pay dues for road maintenance and schools and hospitals. It’s not as if the creation of an organized infrastructure hadn’t improved our lives tremendously. I’m sure making this all dependent on purely profit-driven and voluntary institutions wouldn’t create social stratification and a feudal aristocracy at all…

I am in no way an anarchist. I realize some government is necessary.

I know. Police, the military, and courts to protect the property of the haves. Everything else should be left up to social Darwinism. I’ve met libertarians before—very reasonable people with a perfect minimalist system.

I just don't like the idea of some government bureaucrat deciding what is best for "me".

No, you would rather have a plutocratic oligarch making you an offer you can’t refuse—that is, unless you wish to starve. You’re always free to perish, of course, if you don’t want the minimum wage, paid out in coupons redeemable by the company store only…





Ool added to this post, 8 minutes and 37 seconds later...

liberty
freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.


No freedom from hunger or disease or crushing debt in that list, I see. Some would consider being burdened by any those as greatly confining and limiting…

[Hamburglar]

As a point of clarification, that definition of liberty exists only in the state of nature.

[Stickman]

As a new member of the forum I have observed a situation to that me seems paradoxical.

Of all the MBTI types the INTJ is the most independent, yet I find a great number of the people here of the "collectivist" mindset. This seems to be quite illogical. I would expect this of several other MBTI types but not the INTJ.

What is the explanation?

I can see why it may seem inconsistent but it actually isn't. A dependent person walking with the crowd does so because he prefers to follow. An independent person walking with the crowd is doing so because they just happen to be walking in the same direction or there's some inherit advantage to working with crowds.

It's like asking how INTJs can claim to be the most independent yet this forum is populated by salarymen rather than rugged entrepreneurs.

[jesse]

As a new member of the forum I have observed a situation to that me seems paradoxical.

Of all the MBTI types the INTJ is the most independent, yet I find a great number of the people here of the "collectivist" mindset. This seems to be quite illogical. I would expect this of several other MBTI types but not the INTJ.

What is the explanation?

There is no standard INTJ behavior or penchant for a certain political view on your MBTI outcome. It's plausible many INTJs are fiercely independent-minded people who want to get their own hands dirty, it's perfectly fine to have those who are much less gung ho and instead focus on thinking and ripping ideas to shreds.

The collectivist mindset you talk about is too vague. There is a big difference between "what is yours is also mine" compared to "what's mine is yours". I'm not against sharing what I have, I am against being told what and when and how much to share at gunpoint.

I would think many who are infatuated with a utopia where everything is shared and equall distributed are still at the impressionable and highly idealistic stage of their lives. Many grow out, some don't either because they are unwilling to see the world and open their eyes to what is really happening. In very rare cases do they actually have themselves rationalized that it is the only correct and desirable system. In most cases it is not but don't let me stop you pledging your blind faith an obedience to it. ;)

[Mader]

To address the original post, I do not find this site to be collectivism thinking at all.

It is, tho, wonderfully civil.

And thoughtful - these folks, by nature, think. Most positions are based on thoughts rather than pure emotion.

So, here, if I say "I oppose the Presidents ideas on health insurance", the response from others does not include "you are an ignorant ass who needs to go f*** yourself."

I don't need to agree with everyone - heck life would be rather boring if we all agreed on every issue (even tho I am right on this one). It is really nice to ask a question and get a real answer from folks.

[RedIrish]

I stand intimidated by the rhetoric floating across this thread.

I do not understand the vehemence with which people defend their individual polarities. My natural tendency is to find a mutually agreeable solution which solves the problem under discussion.

I feel that I am becoming a more rare commodity every day, a social democrat who believes that by working together we can accomplish greater results for the benefit of a larger number of people which will result in the betterment of society as a whole. I admit to bafflement when confronted by those who have no interest in society as a whole.

The only proviso I have ever placed on my socialist friends, is that they must prove their ideas are practical and functional and measurable.


<and I do have to admit I am no longer a soft headed college student, now approaching 50, I still maintain my optimistic view of the human species>

[Paul Siraisi]

As a new member of the forum I have observed a situation to that me seems paradoxical.

Of all the MBTI types the INTJ is the most independent, yet I find a great number of the people here of the "collectivist" mindset. This seems to be quite illogical. I would expect this of several other MBTI types but not the INTJ.

What is the explanation?

Youth, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. wherein talk is cheap, as raised in Western Civilization.

Who doesn't want to sound like they care?

Ultimately, it's sublimated Christianity. Not a terrible thing, but we (in the West) consistently go overboard.

Actually, I guess "collectivism" the East is generally far worse. Anyway, this is our version of youthful social silliness.

[Hamburglar]

Did you just cite an internal poll of 193 ppl as a representative measure of the age/sex of the members?

[Paul Siraisi]

Did you just cite an internal poll of 193 ppl as a representative measure of the age/sex of the members?

Yep. I do have a statistics background, and field experience, and I consider it a fair poll.

It's a common misconception that small sample sizes, per se, are unreliable.

A sample of 40 would have been enough for an age/sex statistic, assuming perfect randomness.

Randomness may not have been perfect, but it was sufficient by any logical analysis I can see.

Care to make your arguments?