Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #141  
Old 17/03/2006, 09:52 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Originally posted by time is being:
understanding=expression.
The understanding in any colour, shape or form is an internal process contrary to the expression, which is an external process. So no, no and 100 times no, understanding in not expression.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 17/03/2006, 10:15 PM
Human s/n #098621's Avatar
Human s/n #098621 Human s/n #098621 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 63
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Message = Encoding + Delivery
Understanding = Decoding + Interpretation
Agreed 100%. That's exactly what i wanted to say. Well, my english has not turned out satisfactory.
Damn, this ever flawed communication
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 18/03/2006, 08:14 AM
Human s/n #098621's Avatar
Human s/n #098621 Human s/n #098621 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 63
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
remember: understanding and expression are one.
To me, expression is a means of communication. Understanding is the process of decoding ingoing communication. If you use this terms in another meaning, please define.

Quote:
absolute beeing
If by chance you use this term because i used it here, with absolute i refered to a perfect, higher being. No human being is absolute.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 18/03/2006, 08:54 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Belief and Intelligence

Quote:
Originally posted by time is being:

SG: yes, i could write in a manner that would not lead anyone to have such questions, but then it wouldnt be understanding. Epistemilogical explorations are often confusing, but is not socionics a new knowledge?
People normally ask questions when they don't understand something and need more information to clarify something. When people are curious it is because they almost get it but want to know more because something needs to be clarified. If I don't ask you a question, it is because I absolutely understood what you said or I did not understand anything at all and I can't even ask a question because I don't know how to formulate it because my mind is blank because I understood nothing. If you speak to me in Chinese I can only ask you a question in English but I can ask you a question in English anyway and so you would not know if I asked you because I understood or did not understand what you said to me in Chinese. So if you write in a manner that no one would ask you questions this would be because of a total understanding as in indubitable truth or total and complete mind failure, refusing even to recognise letters and spaces. Well, I'd say less questions show better understanding and therefore the quality of the information you supply. And if you can put yourself in a position of the reader and see if you can understand what you wrote there - that's already a start.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 04/06/2008, 02:40 AM
IntjWurm's Avatar
IntjWurm IntjWurm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 158
Exclamation Intelligent People Believe Different Things

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epic View Post
I think that this would be true if it were tested, even by using an IQ score for the definition of intelligence. Also, from an informational perspective you can look at intelligence as how much information is available for processing. When typically intelligent people are in a nearly hopeless or unpredictable circumstance do they tend to believe in things more readily? So if that is true intelligence can be characterized by information available for processing. less intelligent people find reality consistently more unpredictable because for whatever reason they cannot weigh all of the information simultaneously/multidimensionally. They see something and they respond immediately to it as they see it. So intelligence has alot to do with the relationship to the environment. If what is external looks like what is internal, then there is understanding, if what the environment is like is different, then there is a correction and the environment gets the better of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epic View Post

Believing that you are intelligent tends to be helpful and a motivating factor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
For example, the Pythagoras theorem (Te) states that (a x a) + (b x b) = (c x c), where a and b are the shorter sides of the triangle and c is the longest side, and the angle between a and b is 90 degrees. Why is that true? Because you can prove this theorem - and this is not a Ti answer. The actual logical sequence showing the proof would be a Ti answer (I am not going to do this here but you can find it anywhere else).
HERE'S TO INTROVERTED THINKING!



*Note the use of Light Squares and Dark Triangles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Are INTp's imaginary thinkers?
Do you think in 12D or something?
Are you a set of completely perfectly concistent, adjustable equations that waiting for unquestionable empirical input parameters in order to make the perfect fit with Mother Nature in order to solve all problems in the world in order to.. in order to...?
That would explain A LOT!
That would mean I'm far too stupid to communicate with you basically.
That's not saying much, like 'can you imagine 12 things to measure simultaneously and associate them?'.

Last edited by IntjWurm; 04/06/2008 at 02:50 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 04/06/2008, 02:51 AM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntjWurm View Post



HERE'S TO INTROVERTED THINKING!



Its probably the use of both rational and irrational (socionics term only implied) attitudes of INTx that come up with the solution.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 04/06/2008, 02:55 AM
IntjWurm's Avatar
IntjWurm IntjWurm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 158
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi View Post
Its probably the use of both rational and irrational (socionics term only implied) attitudes of INTx that come up with the solution.
What are those?
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04/06/2008, 03:23 AM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntjWurm View Post
What are those?
I can only speculate that it would be a combination of the two.
NiTe and TiNe . Looking at things from both angles.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04/06/2008, 03:46 AM
IntjWurm's Avatar
IntjWurm IntjWurm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 158
Thumbs up Physiology, Physics, & Metaphysics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
I would see it this way instead: The more data point I have the better the construction of my equations and the more "true" my theory might be.
...presupposing the relevance of either inductive or statistical inference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by time is being View Post
i think it may be more accurate to see N as a ball of putty or clay that impressions are stamped on instead of the networking metaphors that are brought to mind using his terminology. the intuitional understanding becomes stronger amd deeper and longer lasting from the impressions until the inutition is stretched so thin that no distinction can be made between the stamp and stamped.
This reminds me of training a neural network, which I had to do once as an engineering intern. I also see N more as a system of parallel processors and T as a series of logic gates, both sharing memory banks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by time is being View Post
objects do not have a cause and effect structure. to try and understand something by always looking causally will leave you chasing your tail. newton did not see "cause and effect".
Prove it and you might get the Nobel Prize.

If you read about F=m x a and correlate your understanding with your experience from a ride in a roller coaster then you might see what I mean.
John Bell proposed it and Alain Aspect proved it (it's known as non-locality). Time is Being is correct in asserting that Isaac Newton failed to realize the cause of gravity (Newton mentioned this in his notes, his entire rational calculus assumed matter-directed accelerations with only empirical analogy and no distinct source); this was only later revealed as space-time curvature (which is local, unlike Newton's action-at-a-distance, and so can account for gravity by not recognizing the acausal non-locality described by quantum mechanics and contributing to the discrepancy in general relativity and quantum mechanics) by Albert Einstein.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi View Post
I can only speculate that it would be a combination of the two.
NiTe and TiNe . Looking at things from both angles.
No, I meant what do the terms 'rational' and 'irrational' mean in socionics?
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04/06/2008, 04:49 AM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default homepage

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntjWurm View Post


No, I meant what do the terms 'rational' and 'irrational' mean in socionics?
it can be ametaphsical view. The definition can be found/explained in fuller contexts on the homepage here.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 04/06/2008, 05:04 AM
IntjWurm's Avatar
IntjWurm IntjWurm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 158
Angry Irrationals Make For Complex Terms (a + bi)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi View Post
it can be ametaphsical view. The definition can be found/explained in fuller contexts on the homepage here.
I tried to learn it from this but the terminology made no sense to me.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 04/06/2008, 06:19 AM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntjWurm View Post
I tried to learn it from this but the terminology made no sense to me.
I think the author, Tom, is not clear in his assertions of what constitutes Irrationality/Rationality. I am suggesting that he's implying Extrenal Rationality but not labelling it that. There is of course Overall Irrationality. Once again this is an article about MBTI on a socionics site......i suppose you could say that both systems to complicate the matter have their own definition of irrationality/rat. If my memory servesme correct, Socionics refers to the later(Overall designation) while MBTI "to the former in light of the fact that that the former is a partial designation (unlike Socionics total designation of the term) and thus has to account for the other part)

I know there's some better articles out there.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04/06/2008, 09:33 PM
pandapanda's Avatar
pandapanda pandapanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 192
Default

I don't know what intelligence objectively is, and I think every human world view contains some form of belief.

I'm guessing that intelligence is something we observe from our vantage point of being homo sapiens. What traits were favoured by natural selection during our evolution are termed 'intelligence'. We developed a larger brain, relative to our size, than other primates. We also walked on our hind legs, so we were able to use our arms. This enabled us to use and make more tools, and the ability to make this new technology was the start of our 'intelligence'. Also 'spatial intelligence' as people term it is the most efficient use of our body in space (the hind leg walking and the free use of hands). Then we evolved a more complex culture that other apes, and also more abstract languange. Then, what we call interpersonal and linguistic intelligence started to matter. My opinion then is that 'intelligence' is a whole raft of traits that are useful to human beings. It's centred around our species. An elephant, or a cat, would probably think other things constitute 'intelligence'.

Okay, onto belief. Religion is part of our cultural evolution. It gave us a stronger sense of group identity and scared people into acting more altruistically than normal. At that point in our cultural evolution, belief was an 'intelligent' trait because it was useful from a human point of view.

Now religion isn't quite a useful as it once was - though many people still find it is. So many intelligent humans do not hold religious beliefs.

Religious belief may not be such a desired trait anymore - and therfore not an 'intelligent' one. But I would argue belief in something is still an advantageous trait to humans. Atheists 'believe' in science and rationality. I put 'belief' in quotation marks because the reason people come to this 'belief' is rational analysis. They don't arrive at it in the same method as religious people arrive at their beliefs - through reading of scripture and interpretation of emotional experiences.

So there you go; 'belief' isn't always inversely proportional to intelligence - that depends on what you believe in! Belief in creationism is probably inversely proportional to intelligence in our present state of culture. You could say the same for literalistic interpretations of scripture. I don't think those who believe in God are always less intelligent than atheists, however.

I think I'm an agnostic right now (I used to be quite a devout Christian). Maybe that's not an accurate label though - because it's not so much that I believe we can't know if anything supernatural exists or not, I just think it is very unlikely that we will ever know. This is just a belief. I don't really look down on religions, or even want to try to argue against them, because I find them fascinating, and religious people have never personally done me any harm. A lot of people would probably say this is immoral of me, but oh well.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04/06/2008, 10:14 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

I suspect belief in religion is genetic. I therefore think that it's possible for a human to be truly happy, then they must believe in something which has religious connotations. I suspect religion evolved through evolution as a survival/social tool. I also suspect it's possible that the types evolved as part of our evolving social tendencies. As a side issue, there is a direct correlation between brain size and social group size between ourselves and primates. I'm sure I wrote about this, I may have even posted it on Ricks site. Still, probably best talking about it in the pub lol.

Pandapanda's post reminded me of this. I'm posting this so that it hopefully reminds me to think about it once more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandapanda View Post
I don't know what intelligence objectively is, and I think every human world view contains some form of belief.

I'm guessing that intelligence is something we observe from our vantage point of being homo sapiens. What traits were favoured by natural selection during our evolution are termed 'intelligence'. We developed a larger brain, relative to our size, than other primates. We also walked on our hind legs, so we were able to use our arms. This enabled us to use and make more tools, and the ability to make this new technology was the start of our 'intelligence'. Also 'spatial intelligence' as people term it is the most efficient use of our body in space (the hind leg walking and the free use of hands). Then we evolved a more complex culture that other apes, and also more abstract languange. Then, what we call interpersonal and linguistic intelligence started to matter. My opinion then is that 'intelligence' is a whole raft of traits that are useful to human beings. It's centred around our species. An elephant, or a cat, would probably think other things constitute 'intelligence'.

Okay, onto belief. Religion is part of our cultural evolution. It gave us a stronger sense of group identity and scared people into acting more altruistically than normal. At that point in our cultural evolution, belief was an 'intelligent' trait because it was useful from a human point of view.

Now religion isn't quite a useful as it once was - though many people still find it is. So many intelligent humans do not hold religious beliefs.

Religious belief may not be such a desired trait anymore - and therfore not an 'intelligent' one. But I would argue belief in something is still an advantageous trait to humans. Atheists 'believe' in science and rationality. I put 'belief' in quotation marks because the reason people come to this 'belief' is rational analysis. They don't arrive at it in the same method as religious people arrive at their beliefs - through reading of scripture and interpretation of emotional experiences.

So there you go; 'belief' isn't always inversely proportional to intelligence - that depends on what you believe in! Belief in creationism is probably inversely proportional to intelligence in our present state of culture. You could say the same for literalistic interpretations of scripture. I don't think those who believe in God are always less intelligent than atheists, however.

I think I'm an agnostic right now (I used to be quite a devout Christian). Maybe that's not an accurate label though - because it's not so much that I believe we can't know if anything supernatural exists or not, I just think it is very unlikely that we will ever know. This is just a belief. I don't really look down on religions, or even want to try to argue against them, because I find them fascinating, and religious people have never personally done me any harm. A lot of people would probably say this is immoral of me, but oh well.
Where have you got this from, and have you been reading my mind or something? I've already had enough freaky things happen to me today! I can read through this properly and try and find time to discuss it if you like, but i'll probably just agree lol.

..

I remember discussing this with my American friend..mm perhaps I should look through some of my emails. Haha I've not looked her up for a while we've both been busy I hope she's well. Hmm..I should skype her or something.

Last edited by Cyclops; 04/06/2008 at 10:16 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04/06/2008, 10:33 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntjWurm View Post
This reminds me of training a neural network, which I had to do once as an engineering intern. I also see N more as a system of parallel processors and T as a series of logic gates, both sharing memory banks.
John Bell proposed it and Alain Aspect proved it (it's known as non-locality). Time is Being is correct in asserting that Isaac Newton failed to realize the cause of gravity (Newton mentioned this in his notes, his entire rational calculus assumed matter-directed accelerations with only empirical analogy and no distinct source); this was only later revealed as space-time curvature (which is local, unlike Newton's action-at-a-distance, and so can account for gravity by not recognizing the acausal non-locality described by quantum mechanics and contributing to the discrepancy in general relativity and quantum mechanics) by Albert Einstein.

No, I meant what do the terms 'rational' and 'irrational' mean in socionics?
I think you are ENTj. There is no mold in your reasoning, -only rocks.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04/06/2008, 10:35 PM
pandapanda's Avatar
pandapanda pandapanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 192
Default

Sorry, please delete this message. I tried to edit my previous one by quoting.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04/06/2008, 10:43 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Religion comes in waves. As civilisation advances, a previous religion becomes defunct as technology and understanding allows us to realise it is flawed - it no longer explains that which we do not know. Christianity for instance was once at the forefront, but now it is showing some strain as it tries to keep up with ever advancing civilisation.

Perhaps we will therefore see a new up to date religion on it's way

There will always be things we do not know, and will we always look for explanation? And will we always need some form of religion from understanding and social cohesiveness group scenario.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04/06/2008, 11:26 PM
pandapanda's Avatar
pandapanda pandapanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Religion comes in waves. As civilisation advances, a previous religion becomes defunct as technology and understanding allows us to realise it is flawed - it no longer explains that which we do not know. Christianity for instance was once at the forefront, but now it is showing some strain as it tries to keep up with ever advancing civilisation.
The creation story is debunked and there's no reason to believe in any of the miracles in order to explain anything. Christian morality hasn't fared as badly, although it has been criticised by some for being overly altruistic (Nietzsche), or for being impossible for the majority of society to adhere to (for example, Christian scriptures do recommend celibacy, and you know what would happen in the majority practised that). However, due to my background, I harbour a fondness for it. It's a good story, and its evolutionary root means it speaks to us at an unconscious level. I find it poetic - the crucified God, heaven and hell, reanimated corpses, demonic possession and apocalypse. I don't believe in it, but I am moved by it. I bet if not so many wars were partly caused by religion, and if Christians did not try to interfere with science, there would be more non-believers who nevertheless thought their ancestral religion was 'cool'. Christianity evolved from earlier religions - one of them being Judaism, but it was locally mixed with different forms of paganism. People who like to study ancient mythology think it's 'cool' without seriously believing in it (I doubt neo-pagans seriously believe in the pantheon of ancient gods, though I'm sure someone will disagree!) I think that one day, Christianity will be the same.

I'm discussing Christianity here, because it is the religion that is strongest in my culture. The idea of older religions being replaced by new ones all the time has some validity - but Hinduism is probably the oldest major religion in the world. Still, 'Hinduism' is kind of catch-all term because it is practised differently all over India. So maybe the idea of religious evolution even applies to Hinduism throughout its variations. Also, as India develops its religious practise will change - like now sati is illegal, for instance. So you're basically right.


Quote:
Perhaps we will therefore see a new up to date religion on it's way
It's what Jung hoped for, isn't it?

Quote:
There will always be things we do not know, and will we always look for explanation?
Can you even imagine humans not looking to explain the unknown?

Quote:
And will we always need some form of religion from understanding and social cohesiveness group scenario.
Some form of 'belief', yeah. Atheists would hate to call it a 'religion' though.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 04/06/2008, 11:28 PM
IntjWurm's Avatar
IntjWurm IntjWurm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 158
Default Empire On The Rocks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
I think you are ENTj. There is no mold in your reasoning, -only rocks.
I am not familiar with that expression, would you care to elaborate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
There will always be things we do not know, and will we always look for explanation? And will we always need some form of religion from understanding and social cohesiveness group scenario.
I agree...common beliefs encourage both communication and the specialization of labor and so facilitates the spread of civilization. Without them we would all be ravaging the Earth in our own unchallenged way for a very limited time, all by ourselves, and never get anywhere or contribute to anything but as animals.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 05/06/2008, 02:29 AM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Religion comes in waves. As civilisation advances, a previous religion becomes defunct as technology and understanding allows us to realise it is flawed - it no longer explains that which we do not know. Christianity for instance was once at the forefront, but now it is showing some strain as it tries to keep up with ever advancing civilisation.

Perhaps we will therefore see a new up to date religion on it's way

There will always be things we do not know, and will we always look for explanation? And will we always need some form of religion from understanding and social cohesiveness group scenario.
Can Socionics be a Religion ?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM