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.

envirodude

Core Member
  • Content count

    8,226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About envirodude

  • Rank
    Core Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTx
  • Enneagram
    1w9

Converted

  • Biography
    married, two boys
  • Location
    Northern BC
  • Occupation
    public health
  • Gender
    Male
  • Personal Text
    What makes the desert beautiful, said the little prince, is that somewhere it hides a well.
  1. I'm not much of an MBTI person, but this particular distinction seems to be crying out T vs F. More specifically, all the posters above self-identify as NT, aka Keirsey's "Rationals". Rationals (NTs) are the problem solving temperament, particularly if the problem has to do with the many complex systems that make up the world around us. Rationals might tackle problems in organic systems such as plants and animals, or in mechanical systems such as railroads and computers, or in social systems such as families and companies and governments. But whatever systems fire their curiosity, Rationals will analyze them to understand how they work, so they can figure out how to make them work better. So, the lack of an emotional response to tragedy is simply because that's how our minds' process information - rationally rather than emotionally. Why? Who the fuck knows. Brain chemistry, I guess.
  2. And yet, we see both behaviours quite commonly. So... if we accept that simpler social structures, such as one sees in other species, do not promote altruism, then, from an evolutionary perspective, the starting point is non-altruism. One possibility is that we are evolving towards uniformly altruistic behaviour - I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. ... Sorry, rewind to "uniformly altruistic behaviour". Another possibility is that both behaviours are rational, in that both are evolutionarily beneficial, at least at this point in time. Which, according to CO above, makes us collectively insane. This seems the most likely and satisfying conclusion. Qué será, será.
  3. Altruism is an evolutionary adaptation in an ultrasocial species. C'est tout.
  4. I'm a Barrie, Hammertown, TO, Waterloo resident now in BC. I'm also (almost) as old as you, if your 1964 implies anything. Cheers and I hope you find this place useful or at least entertaining.
  5. The popcorn thing in Wikipedia needs a citation. I'm equivocal about the recycling of plastics. Do plastics really cause us that much problem? I think the problem is mostly their dispersal - if we collect them properly, they don't do much to offend. That is, plastics in a landfill bother me much, much less than plastics in the ocean or blowing through the desert. Disclosure: as a Canadian, I am blessed with an abundance of land, so the concept of garbage crowding out people or nature is foreign to me. Another issue about plastics is their manufacture: Polyethylene is derived from either modifying natural gas (a methane, ethane, propane mix) or from the catalytic cracking of crude oil into gasoline. (https://nzic.org.nz/ChemProcesses/polymers/10J.pdf) which I believe is similar to other plastics. This is actually a much higher value use hydrocarbons than burning them in cars and homes, so I'm ok with that, but in the long run (probably thousands of years) for sustainability we'll want to move to biological sources. PE is great because of its chemical resistance - it's used tons for drinking water pipes and is brilliant in that application. I seriously question bacterial "solutions" to decomposing plastics, because of the reasonable expectation that they will not be contained, and once free, their evolution will be difficult to contain - like training the garbage eating dog to stay away from the kitchen table... To be clear, I'm saying I wouldn't want the wee beasties to start eating my pipes, as only one example of the issue.
  6. "Lord take me au centre ville, I'm just looking for some touché." ZZ Haut
  7. You have made very grave errors, mon ami. One would only accent ignorance, but two? Two would be apostrophic. To which you should reply:
  8. Are you crazy? No, but maybe I am a little touché.
  9. The fact that we can have a thread devoted to this topic has reaffirmed my faith in INTJf. FTR, Touché concedes the point, not the argument.
  10. Mencken actually said, "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong." The paraphrased version you give is better. Just wrong. :)
  11. Good call. We're kind of stupid that way.
  12. Tuna bunnies*. My 10-yo dissected them to remove any celery, claiming he hates celery. My 13-yo, on the other hand, said they were pretty good. Small victories... * an open-faced tunafish sandwich, toasted with cheese on top.
  13. From "A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions" What a joke. Pity you didn't comprehend the entire piece - it's quite good. Of course you found it difficult to find something to cherry-pick to suit your own opinion.... Who said I didn't understand it? NOT considering others in your decisions is a characteristic of sociopathy.
  14. Ah good, that explains our inability to communicate. I only do analogies, and feel nothing is meaningful in isolation, So we have a perfect excuse to disengage.
  15. Really. Alternative courses of action are only meaningful in comparison to their alternatives. The only alternative to abortion that I'm aware of is not having an abortion. That makes it a binary choice. You cannot meaningfully discuss abortion without discussing carrying the fetus to term. Rubbish. I've been saying it consistently for a week going on a lifetime. Considering effects on third parties is so fundamental to ethics - except "ethical egoism" - that I found it hard to find a clear statement of the principle. But here it is: From "A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions" My third parties were never implicit. I named them from the start: father grandparents siblings friends What I said was that I wasn't aware of any research to characterise the impacts of the decision on them. By all means, point me in the direction of empirical studies on external effects, if you know of any. Your reference to the contract between the woman and her doctor(s) is ultra vires. Ethical considerations are clearly broader than contract law. The consideration due to those affected by the woman's decision is ethical consideration only. I never suggested and do not suggest any legal consideration to those affected. I meant and I mean that the woman ought to put her mind to the effects she expects her decision will have on others. How do you feel about the ethics of suicide? Again, no ethical duty to consider effects on others? Hogwash.