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.

Imperator

Moderators
  • Content count

    9,143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Imperator

  • Rank
    Core Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    InTJ
  • Enneagram
    Type 1 5w6
  • Global 5/SLOAN
    RCOEI

Converted

  • Homepage
    https://kaitaetc.com/
  • Biography
    Professional neophyte
  • Location
    Michigan, USA
  • Interests
    Classics, philology, history, psychology, reading
  • Gender
    Male
  • Personal Text
    Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,126 profile views
  1. So the only reason you asked is so you can lecture those who say "yes", and you never intended an honest conversation? Thanks for clarifying. Why should I give a shit what the others say? Does the number of people who agree have any bearing on the veracity of the view? If not, why did you bring this up? Can you answer any question with any sort of integrity and honesty? Or is it all games, smoke and mirrors?
  2. The answer is yes. The Golden Rule can be used to justify your examples. I already gave you this answer, and you didn't like it. So why are you pretending like you care what anybody else says?
  3. White Americans in particular have crappy palates. Was just listening to a news report about how we're so undiscerning in our tastes, countries like Italy are selling us rancid olive oil and keeping the good stuff for themselves because we don't know the difference. Fortunately, I was raised around POC, so I know what real food tastes like.
  4. You need to stop pretending like you know what you're talking about, and start actually using your brain.
  5. People do this shit all the time. Your inability to grasp this is astounding. But you're also conflating issues, so I can help you separate things. Get rid of the extraneous about what you think is moral or justifiable, consent, and what you find allowable. The Golden Rule is simply stated. If somebody wants something done to them, then they will likely do it to others. "Tough love" is justified this way, theists trying to convert people on their deathbed, and all your examples. Whether or not you find these actions moral is irrelevant. These people are still following the Golden Rule. As CS Lewis aptly put it: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." This is the drawback of the Golden Rule. So yes, the Golden Rule would allow one adult to try coercing another to drive a certain speed, because that person would want someone else to do the same for them. And yes, the Golden Rule would allow gay conversion therapy, because the people doing it would want to be converted themselves. Whether you think these actions are moral, and whether they're actually moral, is irrelevant to whether they folllow the Golden Rule. You already know this, you're just being blind and stubborn because your ego is draining blood from your brain. And if that sounds mean, well I appreciate people who give me "tough love", and so under the Golden Rule, I am giving you some of the same. Pull your head from your ass. Is it moral? Do you think it's moral? It doesn't matter, because I'm tormenting you with the approval of my own conscience. The Golden Rule and this drawback that can justify coercion and shitty behavior is why a moral system based on it sucks.
  6. Said the pledge every day for several years in elementary school. Distinctly remember mumbling or purposefully not saying the "under God" part (not making a point about religion, this is just to indicate my recall). Then it stopped around 5th or 6th grade. Went to a private Catholic middle, and high school (7th through 12th); we didn't do anything that I can remember.
  7. Yes, when they are resolvable. A lot of the lengthier debates are over issues that are more over interpretation and opinion than the facts. Usually, the facts get settled pretty quickly, and the debate centers around what to make of them. One way or another, yes. There's an actual debate here. People on Facebook don't debate -- they usually just snipe each other with one liners and tag lines. If you tried to evaluate what a person's actual argument is on Facebook, I think you'd find 90% of the time there isn't one, it's just barely coherent ranting. Speaking of, the intelligibility and writing skill of users here is far and above what I've seen on Facebook. The people here who speak English as a second language have a better command of it that half the native speakers on Facebook. For the most part, they are. That doesn't mean people are gullible though. You have to bring your A game. We don't often settle for less. Put forward ALL the evidence they find, including the evidence that might contradict their position. It teaches you to see the whole chess board, as well as understand the strengths and weaknesses of other arguments. It demonstrates research skills, and basic integrity. It also beats a lot of people to the punch, and leaves your opponent speechless. When you are able to understand and present the opposing argument better than your opponent, you are already doing the work an open mind requires. You also look way better than your opponent. The honest answer: Maybe? Probably. I don't keep close track of debates, victories, losses, or how I am perceived. Some things stick in my memory, and I know I've gotten a number of high marks from even those heavily opposed to my views, but there are likely things I would read back on and do over if I could, either due to a poor argument or new/better understanding. Smartass answer: I've never admitted defeat because I've never lost.
  8. As a tangent, I think it's important to note that this paper passed peer-review, but peer-review does not mean "accepted fact" as a lot of people believe. Peer-review means the paper has passed a minimum of scientific scrutiny and is therefore acceptable to be reviewed by the field at large. It is the START of the scientific conversation on an issue, and this is a pretty good demonstration of how science is self-correcting -- hence the criticisms that have resulted. I don't want to derail the thread talking about peer-review, but I found this a good opportunity to dispel that particular misconception -- especially since I've noticed a lot of users will simply cite a peer-reviewed article and leave it at that, as if citing an article in itself was all the proof needed for a given argument.
  9. I could almost smell the arrogance dripping from the article. It was written very much like they had discovered something fantastically important and revolutionary. If they're basically claiming the strain they found is radically different from everything we know about bacteria, I'd call that a "win" for my skepticism and bullshit detection skills. Not bad for someone who hasn't opened a biology book since high school, no?
  10. So if I understand this correctly, the basic point here is if they only found 2 differences between this and modern marismortui, it's more likely that it's because it is modern marismortui, rather than a different strain 250 Myr old that somehow has only evolved 2 differences in all that time. Is that about right?
  11. As a biology novice, I know exceptionally little about phylogeny. That said, the warning flags from a non-biologist: 1. They note a discrepancy between the typical Salado mineral range and their date, with no explanation as to why. 2. They just kind of conclude that because the crystal is 250 Myr old, the bacteria inside must be the same age. This seems a heavy assumption, and I know enough about archaeology to know you can't always assume something found in one context is necessarily the same age as that context. It's rare to find something like a 3rd century good in a 5th century context (or vice versa), but not impossible. After all, I can still walk inside the Colosseum, and if I it and I were suddenly buried, future archaeologists would find a 21st century body in a 1st century building. If a younger bacteria could be shown to make use of an older salt crystal, that pretty much blows the paper up, right? 3. Can DNA even last 250 Myrs to be sequenced accurately? I know they did this in Jurassic Park, but I was under the assumption this was more or less fantasy. As a non-biologist, I wouldn't be surprised to be wrong on all these points, but as a skeptically minded individual, I'd be curious to see if I was at least thinking about things in the correct manner.
  12. Skilled laborers, and relatively low tech. Some people make the mistake of thinking you can't do much with such "primitive" technology, and that's why these alien theories exist. The problem is, you can do a lot with a few pulleys and levers. And if you have the money, resources, and time, you don't need much more tech to make it happen.
  13. They all might be accurate, because the content of what they're actually measuring could be different. Average net wealth or net worth is not the same question as average savings, and so they're probably measuring two different things. Remember, "wealth" in a lot of cases means total assets minus total liabilities, so someone who owns a $200,000 house and has only $50,000 worth of debt could have a net wealth of $150,000 and still only have $1000 in the bank or "savings". The majority of their wealth simply is in the house rather than liquid cash or in some type of dedicated savings account. The key to properly analyzing information isn't finding the magical unicorn source that is always correct, it's understanding what each source is telling you and properly evaluating the accuracy and usefulness of each one. Then you reconcile them based on an analysis of the quantity and quality of the data you have. Your best bet is government stats, like the BLS, Census, etc, city and county records, or academic stats, studies from universities or non-profit research centers that record this type of info. They're not always going to be accurate, and there will likely be some discrepancies, but you're stuck with what's out there, and if the government or academics get it wrong, there's nothing you or anyone else can do about that anyways. Someone wants to dispute the BLS or Census numbers, well then that's their problem. There's no point in arguing if someone's going to dispute the best information available for purely selfish reasons. Random journalists or websites claiming numbers are either getting them from these same government sources (in which case, just go right to the .gov sites and ignore the article), or they're making them up based on who knows what, and should still be ignored. Put it short: You first have to figure out what you mean by "average and median net worth", and then find the sources that either answer that question directly, or estimate based on available data and related questions.
  14. Scientists could do a better job communicating their messages to the public, sure. For starters, everyone already knows the way to title a paper is "Witty Title: Real Stuff". That is, Witty Title, colon, the actual topic of the paper. "The Empire Strikes: Imperial Roman Coinage". "What did the Romans Ever Do For Us: Reception and Legacy of the Hellenistic Period". "Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll: Ancient Sports and Athletic Popularity" "Shit or Get Off the Pot: Review of Roman Sewer Systems" But mandating comedy in papers just seems like a great way to ruin both things. The general public are morons. I'm not even doing stuff in fields that are particularly dense or intellectually challenging and the general public are still too incompetent to do it themselves. Why should I give a shit whether the general public are apathetic and mistrusting? Why should any scientist and professional researcher give a shit? At the end of the day, facts always win.
  15. I think you're caught up in the idea that there's such a thing as a "natural cycle". That kinda poisons the well on this whole meaning and purpose thing, doesn't it? I've got an engraved fountain pen that was a gift from my fiance. It has meaning for me and her, probably not for anybody else. It's not a very good pen, so it's not even going to attract much "meaning" from a utilitarian view. The important thing here isn't that I give the pen meaning, it's that nobody else can dictate to me what the pen means. Nobody can tell me the pen is meaningless. I'm the ultimate and only authority on what things mean to me, and I have zero authority over meaning for anyone else. "Meaning" and "purpose" are like taste and flavor. They're subjective and personal, they don't have correct answers, and you need no outside authority to tell you what something is, nor do you need permission from anybody else to inform your own choices.