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 thod

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign
  • Personal DNA


  • Gender
  1. Whereas here they are regarded as a resource to be exploited. The shopping mentality prevails. They seek to buy educated people in the market but have no part in educating them. They are expected to provide the skills themselves so that the employers have something to buy. Yet they won't say what it is they want to buy so education is a risky business. All the risk if offset to the student. If they can't find what they want, then they either move their cash abroad or bring in skilled immigrants. The upper classes feel no affinity to their countrymen. Their affinity is to their class. That is largely international these days with billionaires hobnobbing with foreign billionaires on the international social circuit. They see no reason to invest in making any one place better. They seek to extract from it and to be free to move the spoils around as they can. Thus they don't care if they run the place into the ground. Not so different to the way certain capitalists work in extracting all value from a company leaving a shell that soon goes bust.
  2. And why must something be justified at all. Perhaps it just is.
  3. Thus the question that arises is not one of religion or atheism but one of satisfaction. If a small child asks where a baby comes from, then it is sufficient to say "from mommys tummy". It is satisfied, it never occurs to it to ask how it got there. Thus the question is one of satisfaction and what that term means.
  4. What are some of the advantages of a mass of people taking the same stance and same opinions? What can it achieve? The advantages of having everyone pull in the same direction are obvious. It gets things done, not necessarily the right things though. The most obvious example is WW2 when the whole country was mobilized to the single objective of defeating the enemy. A more obvious example is the sputnik shock which kicked America into a space race. The next big shock to the US is likely to be something that comes from China. We already have lesser examples, their coordination to dominate the solar panels industry. Because they were a single force, the fragmented, 'competing', businesses of the US were overwhelmed and went out of business. What are some of the disadvantages of a mass of people taking the same stance and same opinions? What can it achieve? Clearly other agendas get sidelined. Those agenda which are contrary to the societies goals are actively oppressed. The individuals that hold those goals complain about individual liberties. And as a bonus question: Has solidarity irrevocably changed the world more than the freedom of individual endeavours? E.g. a large mob catering to acting within the lowest ability among them (including vegetables) vs Newton or Einstein or Hannibal. Or is somewhere in-between, like a collective elite unit within society a better representative of causing large changes? Those individuals were products of their societies. There is a reason that so many of the early inventions came out of the UK, the industrial revolution. Hannibal would never have been Hannibal had it not been for the Punic wars.
  5. Yet Finland too always comes out tops in these test and it uses a very different educational philosophy. The question to me is not how the worst 10% perform since they will never advance their field anyhow. Even the average does not matter much for the same reason. It is the top 10% that will be responsible for all advances and that argues for an elitist educational approach. The big problem is that of middle class parents prepping their kids to pass the tests. Highly gifted working class, who would make much better students, are simply passed up because they don't get the early training. They used to have a selective educational system in the UK, the so-called grammar schools. These were opposed by the left who opposed elitist education. They were opposed by the right who saw their product competing with their own sons, they wanted to give their own, less capable, offspring all the advantages. The state does not see all citizens as potential resources. It is very much class warfare and the political class is mostly upper middle class. The doctors, lawyers, senior managers and small business owners. They legislate to the advantage of their class. They don't much care about state education because their own children are in private schools. The majority of Oxfords intake comes from those schools despite them representing a minority of the population.
  6. Nah, it is system that appeals to young men with autistic tendencies. They like logic but are not very good at it. So they say "You own you body right? So if you can own you body we have property" then they go on to say that justifies all property. Yet it does not follow that if one owns ones body that one can own the state of Alabama. They are two entirely different things, they dismiss that difference in order to keep their model simple and intact. "Hey if you own you body, then there is property, thus I can own your body" follows in the same way. Their is nothing virtuous about locking in injustice simply to avoid conflict. Where one man works the land but it paid little while another owns it and reaps in the cash for doing nothing at all other than being a part of the ownership class. Don't you see it for what it is? Libertarianism is a memetic weapon, a brain virus, of the landed classes to disarm the poor into accepting their place. Then you support the idea that libertarians should have fewer rights than other men. If property is an issue of rights, poor men have fewer rights. Perhaps then we should remove rich men's right to vote for example. If only the poor could vote, or hold high office, the state would look very different.
  7. This idea of the earliest justified claim is not justification. Firstly we do not know who first occupied the land. I am in England, the land has been occupied for many thousands of years. Its current distribution is simply the result of force, luck and cunning. Secondly we were not present in that past and thus had no chance to partake in the land grab. You are arguing that something that we played no part in is justified. That works out well for the landed but not for the landless. Since Locke was in the employ of the Earl of Shaftesbury, a landowner, his motivation is clear. Why should it not? The animals recognize no such boundaries. The concept of ownership is entirely artificial. It requires others to recognise an ownership claim for it to be valid at all. If the landless are to be excluded from the land, then they have no reason to recognize any such claims. After all, the landowner no more created the land than they did. It is not the product of his labor. Now you may say "but he improved it". Well fine, maybe you would like to improve it too, but there is no unoccupied land for you to claim. Even in the US now, every inch of land is accounted for. We could start by abolishing all inheritance. All property reverts to the state upon death thus freeing it up for someone else, the capable to own. So am I. The problem with the Economist, and I used to read it every week, is that it promotes the neoliberal world view. It is a fake narrative.
  8. Well I smoked tobacco for 30 years, and more cannabis than anyone I know. I drink. I take all manner of drugs. Yet unlike everyone else my age, I have zero health problems. I am as fit as a fiddle with the body of someone 20 years younger. I don't get it either. Perhaps it is the not giving a darn attitude, stress does so much damage. I was reading of someone aged 104 just the other day that has decided to give up smoking. Perhaps it is all in the genes. That is what the researchers reckon. A good lifestyle will get you to 80 but to make it past 100 you need the genes.
  9. I don't have a problem with that. If all swans are white and you show me a non-white bird, then it is clearly not a swan. You may point to various morphological features in which it resembles one, yet if it lacks the essential whiteness, then it is not a swan. Clearly there is a need for a new category of swan-like birds, the psuedo-swans. It sort of reminds me of the way people tell me that the tomato is a fruit and not a vegetable. Personally, I have little difficulty in being buddies even with those with known low IQs. The subject of conversations tends to be more limited but we still find things to chat about.
  10. We will raid the enemy village. We will kill the men. Rape the women. Carry off his grain and pretty girls. Then burn his huts. It is script hard-wired into us from millennia of evolution. The plan is always the same.
  11. Once a week is fine, of course if it is dirty then clean it. It is much like your body. You have a shower schedule but you may take an additional one if you need it due to sport etc. The brush is for heavy cleaning. The usual way to clean a loo is to squirt thick bleach around under the rim. It will descend and clean the walls and basin. Some will stick around though several flushes keeping it clean.
  12. Smart people do not spend their time talking about smart things. The vast majority of their intellect is spent on sweating the small stuff too. Nor are intellectual subjects best approached through conversation, it takes time to ponder the arguments, a medium such as this forum is far better. Nor are any two smart people likely to be interested in the same thing at the same time. They can be really boring as they bang on about their current interest. My girl is an ESFJ, she jabbers none stop about clothes, her friends, TV soaps etc. Yet she is kind and thoughtful (and always up for sex). I doesn't bother me much that I can't have intellectual conversations with her since I couldn't have such with someone smarter either, unless they had recently read up on that theory too. The problem is that one is seeking everything in one person, it won't happen. Intellectual stimulation must come from the wider acquaintance and there are more important properties to seek in a partner.
  13. Yea, freaks and weirdos are everywhere. They say "I am a transo-cis-bdsm-neutronbomb". I say "nope you are a neurotic muppet that needs to get real".
  14. It is pretty much true though. What needs fleshing out are the pros, other than the regular sex.
  15. Actually, moderate drinkers live the longest of all groups. Even heavy drinkers outlive teetotalers. Nicotine is a nootropic, enhancing various aspects of cognition. It is often given to old people to keep them sharp. Smoking it what causes the harm, not nicotine. So what else have got here, NAD+ is still very speculative and I recently read it may increase cancer risks. Metformin is the only one with good evidence. Yet I found it killed my testosterone and had to discard my stash. I don't want a few more years if it means feeling like crap during the normal lifespan. That is why few people could tolerate the extreme calorie restriction regime.