Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


Core Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jndiii

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign
  • Personal DNA
    Benevolent Leader
  1. The flaws are numerous. The main one is that you assume your conclusion, and thus your arguments exist to justify your conclusion, rather than start from solid moral principles. How can you tell that a moral argument is circular? Simple. Moral arguments that start from basic principles are never binary. A moral dilemma is a dilemma precisely because moral principles compete with each other, and different moral principles are more or less valid based on context. As long as you do not acknowledge the good and the bad of both sides of the argument, you are engaging in self-justification, not in moral reasoning. The typical pro-choice reasoning hinges entirely on the autonomy of the woman. The typical pro-life reasoning hinges entirely on the autonomy of the unborn child. The CONTEXT of both sides of reasoning changes as the unborn child slowly develops from a single fertilized egg into a recognizable human baby to which the woman can successfully give birth. Both sets of reasoning are flawed when they don't recognize the validity of the other. In other words, at some point, most everyone except for the most extreme ideologues will agree that abortion is killing a human being. Similarly, at some point, most everyone except the most extreme ideologues will agree that the earliest possible abortion doesn't kill anything that is recognizably a human. As the context changes, most people tend to gravitate from one view to the other, just as different contexts make some kinds of homicide (such as self-defense) entirely morally justified, even as other contexts render the homicide more and more morally reprehensible. ^^ This is what moral reasoning looks like. It uses "fuzzy logic" because it has to. It never uses binary logic except in the simplest cases, or when explaining morality to children. As for your main premise, that a woman has self-ownership and doesn't owe her body to anyone, as a practical matter that has never been true until the last century or so, and not just because of legalities. No, abortion is surgery, and for most of history it was not safe: it was safer to bear the child to term and thus was usually in the woman's interest to do so. The hijacking of a woman's body for pregnancy happens because of nature, not because of laws or social constructs. But now, the technology exists and it is mostly safe to have an abortion. How much does that changing of context make it moral to have an abortion? Let's take a look ... The main thing that has changed is that before, the self-interest of the woman and the self-interest of the child were entwined. They weren't exactly the same, but they were very close. NOW the respective self-interests can be very different. Before there was for the most part no moral dilemma: you had to be very desperate to get an abortion. Now there is a moral dilemma: the rights of the woman vs the rights of the unborn. As for the rights of the woman, all but the most extreme would agree that a woman should not be forced to bearing a child to term in the case of rape or in the case that the pregnancy endangers the woman's very life. That aligns with your reasoning for the most part, but most people who strongly weigh the unborn's interest would see no problem with forcing a woman who has been pregnant for six months to continue to do so for 3 months more. But there's the rub: after the child is born, hardly anyone sees any problem with forcing the woman to take care of that child for the next 18 years unless she formally gives it up for adoption, just as no one sees any problem with forcing the father to provide for that child for the next 18 years, too. So, how does forcing the child to term differ? The reasoning that it isn't entirely human doesn't apply. We find the arbitrary killing or inflicting pain on puppies as morally reprehensible, and puppies aren't human. At some point, the unborn child transitions from "less important than a puppy" to "more important than a puppy". I would argue that that one such point is the ability to feel pain. Even when we lawfully kill puppies, we "put them to sleep", i.e., we kill them as painlessly as possible. The same reasoning would apply to unborn children, then: if they can't feel pain, then you can argue that the woman having an abortion inflicts no suffering. It's at the same level as euthanizing a puppy. But there's another contextual factor: a large part of the woman's self-interest w/r to abortion is that IF the child is born, then the woman must either give the child up for adoption, or must provide for that child for the next 18 years. One can argue morally about the woman's autonomy over and over, but in the end, the self-interest - the EVIL part, if you will - is that abortion is the last-ditch attempt to avoid the responsibility of HAVING the child. If it weren't for all of the social, legal and moral consequences of having the child, then pregnancy is just a 9-month hump in life (pun intended!) that a woman can just get past and live on as if nothing had happened. Especially with late-term abortion, the woman has endured almost the entire pregnancy, but the abortion means that there are no moral/legal ramifications after that. This last contextual factor weakens your self-ownership argument considerably. If the entire argument is about self-ownership, then only early abortions are justified: in effect, by your core principle, the woman is essentially consenting to her body being used to gestate a child if she waits until the last moment to have an abortion, especially if she has the right to an abortion at any point along the way. In other words, a woman in that position isn't objecting to the pregnancy, per se, but to the responsibility that comes after the child is born. I could go on, weighing the various moral factors, most of which you never even considered. As you can see, the general tendency is that they tend to justify earlier abortions not only on the grounds of your reasoning but on several other grounds of reasoning (feels pain, is recognizably a human baby, etc.), and they tend to condemn abortions as the context slowly shifts to late term. In no case, however, does the woman have an ultimate moral right to an abortion in the absence of consideration of the state of the unborn child. It is always a weighing of different moral principles, all of which are valid. Why, then, is the abortion debate so binary? In the US, it's because the Supreme Court ruled on it. As far as the law is concerned, the woman has all the moral legitimacy to make any and all choices with respect to her pregnancy. No one can gainsay her judgment. Thus the pro-abortion argument has become, "It's always OK to have an abortion." Mirroring this, the contrary argument has become, "It's never OK." In other countries, where abortion isn't a right, the laws are more nuanced, and take into account much of the moral reasoning I've given as examples in this post. Also, due to the Supreme Court ruling, those who believe in the legitimacy of abortion rights know very well that if the ruling were ever overturned, the vast majority of abortion rights would just vanish, so for them it's an all-or-nothing fight. Anyway, my purpose here is intended more to show how I believe moral reasoning happens in real life, that the flaw I find in your argument is that it's a binary all-or-nothing argument, which is never the case in any other moral issues. Morality is a social construct - perhaps even THE social construct. As such, it is never 100% one way or 100% the other: it's always a mixture of the input of all the different parts of society and is never determined by the moral supremacy of any single individual or group of individuals. What's my personal view of what morality should apply? In general, I find that moral reasoning used to avoid responsibility is almost always wrong. Think about it in any case other than abortion. Except in extreme cases such as being held responsible for a crime you didn't commit, most moral choices imply accepting one's own responsibility - especially the responsibilities that one would really like to avoid. Applying this general principle to abortion, I would argue that unless the pregnancy was forced on the woman, the woman is underage, etc. (extreme cases), the moral choice is to accept the responsibility of parenthood. While my reasoning here dovetails with a lot of other pro-life reasoning, note that it isn't "pro-life". It's "pro-responsibility". What if the woman isn't ready for the responsibility? I believe that's mostly handled by the "underage" case. As for the rest, well, "experience is what you get AFTER you need it." How do you know whether you are ready for responsibility until you take it on?
  2. I concur, but it's a bit of a tautology as stated here, isn't it? More precisely, "pseudoscience" is any topic to which advocates attempt to apply the prestige of science in spite of the lack of scientific methodology. But it isn't that neat and tidy in real-life cases. It is easy, for example, for nonscientists to misunderstand what the science says, and claim that it says "A!!!!", when in reality the science makes much more precise and nuanced claims that suggest-but-don't-completely-prove A. In general, once it enters the realm of issue advocacy, it isn't truly science anymore.
  3. The chart already posted is a reasonably good start. The problem with distinguishing science from pseudoscience, however, is that it is difficult for those who are not well-versed in the topic to make the distinctions the chart outlines. Here are some means that non-experts can use to spot pseudoscience. Is it too good to be true? It's probably pseudoscience. Anything that you would really LIKE to be true can be made to look scientific enough that you'll accept the rest of the claims. Is it really scary? There is probably pseudoscience involved. Science is full of scary things that are extremely unlikely to affect you. Does it involve food/nutrition? Almost always pseudoscience. Interestingly, food invokes very moral/emotional reactions from most people. Many religions follow strict dietary laws that aren't based on science, but on their ideas of "cleanliness". Even otherwise non-religious people can be fanatical about food, e.g., vegans. Is it at the center of political debate? Then there is definitely pseudoscience, even if there is real science underlying it. Those who wish to influence policy will point at real science and then say that you disagree with the science (or don't believe in science) because you disagree with their pseudoscientific conclusions. Things like "life extension" are usually too good to be true. Lifespans have been getting longer naturally, as our knowledge of nutrition and medicine have expanded. MBTI? It's technically a pseudoscience, but not radically so. The main problem is that it is a trademarked system, and there is therefore an inherent resistance to updating it to conform to new scientific results. It's not radically a pseudoscience, however, because it doesn't differ too much from the Five Factor model of personality, which has a more solid scientific foundation. You can use MBTI to gain a layman's understanding of psychological types that is reasonably useful, but it doesn't have a firm enough foundation to clarify debates about things like, "How is feeling different from thinking?" The Five Factor Model provides coherent answers to similar questions, because each axis of measurement is well-defined. In the other direction, it is possible to characterize real science as pseudoscience or otherwise being invalid, when many people really don't like what the science says. IQ is a good example of this. It's a very strong psychological metric that is very predictive, even more so that the Five Factor model, but people don't like that a "mere test" can make those kinds of predictions. In short, if people are getting emotionally worked up, instead of (for example) just rolling their eyes at another crank, then you're probably dealing with pseudoscience.
  4. Simple intuitive version (since no one supplied it yet):
  5. It's classic Jung. The whole point is that while we have a developed conscious side, we all have a "shadow" side. The shadow side isn't "evil", but it tends to be comprised of the aspects of ourselves that we "don't like". As such, these aspects of ourselves are underdeveloped and tend to arise in immature ways, often bursting forth in spite of our attempts to suppress them. Part of becoming a fully-integrated human being, according to Jung, is to find and recognize these shadow parts of yourself and to own them and develop them. In the case of the OP, the shadow is inferior Ti. Ti represents critical thinking independent of social considerations, the opposite of Fe. Fe types tend to be "nice", to follow social rules - especially the unwritten ones - and in general understand how to read and navigate social situations. The shadow Ti, for an Fe dom, is the part of the mind that is suppressed, and as a result tends to sit back and think of the Fe approach as, "This is all bullshit." Under stress, the "this is all bullshit" part of the mind can break loose. All the petty resentments come bubbling forth. By facing that shadow self and understanding it, by understanding that you are capable of that kind of malevolence (however petty) and overcoming it, you become a more complete human being. What does that look like? It's difficult to describe. It's easier to give examples. Usually, the kind of person who has undergone this journey is fairly old. Probably older than your parents, usually about as old as your grandparents. While it's not guaranteed (there are indeed plenty of maladjusted older people out there), when you spot it, it's obvious. It's that grandparent who has seen it all, who isn't fazed by much, who manages to keep a level head even when things get super dramatic. Look for that kind of person in your life, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
  6. This is typical for Fe doms. Jung pointed out that the shadow Ti thinks all sorts of nasty thoughts, even as dominant Fe thinks positive thoughts. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0058COD3K/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
  7. That's called an "analogy". It's funny how humans anthropomorphize everything. Even professional biologists do it. Or as Sapolsky puts it, "want to do is just shorthand". "Reciprocity" implies thinking patterns that don't actually exist for most species. But yes, that's why reciprocity is so deeply ingrained, insofar as it is an evolutionary (and cultural) advantage.
  8. It's not about selflessness. Jonathan Haidt lays out a theory along these lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory Different people weigh these foundations differently. The only aspect of this that applies to selflessness is "Care". Not that Care is an insignificant aspect, it's right up there with Fairness/Reciprocity. Both of these are very much hardwired into the human mind. We are selfless towards that which we care about, in the same sense that parents are selfless towards their children. Reciprocity is also hardwired: we can see examples of this in chimps and other primates. They will become upset by unfairness, a lack of reciprocity. The other three are more abstract, especially Sanctity. They're also hardwired, but can manifest in remarkably different ways. For example, even among those who are not "religious" you will find people who act quite religiously about what foods are OK or not OK to eat. ^^ This is closer to the truth, emphasizing reciprocity that exists among social mammals (not social species, as bees and ants are social, but they don't need an ethical/moral system because they don't have the kind of individuality one sees among social mammals). There is something to this, but it's over-rationalizing. One of the more important points of reciprocity is that it is negotiated. In order to establish reciprocity, one has to figure out the various things that other people want and try to provide those as best as one is able, and they need to figure out what you want and return the favor. Sometimes this is explicit. Other times it's almost completely unconscious. Most of the conclusions of ethics are just rationalizations of these negotiations. The actual negotiations are not rational, however. Also, it is useful to distinguish between ethics and morality (and perhaps legality, too). Morality is mostly a state of being: one tries to be a moral person, the kind of person that tries to abide a moral code, and that code is usually very abstract. Ethics is more like "what is socially OK to do, even if not strictly moral", and tends to be more applicable to specific instances than generalized cases. Legality is at the far end of that spectrum, where the absolute social boundaries of what is acceptable are drawn. Morality and ethics mostly overlap, but it's possible to be moral in a certain regard without being ethical in that regard, and it's possible to be ethical without being moral. I'd ascribe personal integrity to morality, as I distinguish that from ethics, above. The main takeaway I'd like to leave for people is that there is so much more to it than selflessness, than caring. Yes, caring is good, but it is NOT the ultimate good. It is possible to care for others in ways that harm them, to protect them too much, to prevent them from learning to care for others themselves, to prevent them from properly learning reciprocity, and so on. One might argue that these perversions of caring aren't true caring, aren't true selflessness, and you'd have a point, but one cannot derive that point from critical reasoning without positing that there are other moral factors than just caring that are as important as caring.
  9. Well, um, actually, you should differentiate it ... but you go ahead and integrate it. Yeah, that's the ticket.
  10. All "energy" approaches reduce to a "force" approach, e.g., Hamiltonian, Lagrangian, etc. In general, physicists use an "energy" approach when the systems are very complicated and figuring out what the forces are is not trivial. No.
  11. Indeed. The alternative would have been embarrassing.
  12. SirJac has provided the correct answer!
  13. The answer is the same answer for all condiments: they're condiments precisely BECAUSE they only taste good as spices/dressings on other food. For butter in particular, paulcod is correct: as humans, we tend to crave fatty and salty foods. We just don't crave fat and salt all by themselves. Butter tastes good, e.g., on bread or toast because bread/toast has no fat and almost no salt. Same for popcorn (though popcorn has a bit of oil from frying). French fries and potato chips taste good to us for similar reasons: fat and salt added to starch. Bacon is one of the rare examples of a fatty salty food that we eat as is, but even bacon is often used as a condiment in salads, and we generally don't eat a LOT of bacon at once because it is so intense.
  14. I think the last method is perhaps the most accurate (insofar as personality typology can be). Why? Because it's fairly easy given a choice of three things which of those three is the closest to you. So you just choose one each from (2, 3, 4) and (5, 6, 7) and (8, 9, 1). Also there is a lot of bleed over between types, e.g., 5s can be as perfectionistic as 1s (concerned about being right more than being perfect, however), 6s as brooding as 4s, 3s as adventurous as 7s, and so on. This can make certain types score high even though you are really another type. The way the Enneagram is arranged helps to alleviate the confusion, as each center (mind, heart, gut) contains three types that have VERY different approaches to that center. 8 and 9 and 1 are all very different. As are 5 and 6 and 7, and as are 2 and 3 and 4. So even though as a 5, I tend to score high as a 1, it is clear that my gut is 9 and not 1. Type 1s tend to hang onto "being right" much more strongly than I do. The 5 emphasis is more on "being correct" than "being right" if that makes sense. (The 5 can still be completely wrong, however, but the 5's metric is one's mastery of a topic, not on trying to impose one's idea of being right on others.) I, too, get 953 as my tritype.
  15. This is just the latest in an ongoing affair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/ A humorous incident from back in the 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair There are very earnest academics out there who believe that everything is a social construct. Forget the arguments about gender - those are small potatoes. Science and math are social constructs, too. There is no independent reality, everything is interpretation. Besides, it's really easy to write academic papers when you don't have to prove anything, and that's got to count for something, right?