Personality Cafe banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Explaining (lecturing) to my mom for thirty minutes on how we see color after a five minute discussion and reading notes in class XD. I checked my notes, and I was right about what I said. Haha.
I love explaining things to people.
Does that even count?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15 Posts
There was a time back in January or February of 2011 in which I was with some friends at a restaurant on a college campus and finally discovered that someone I had known for several months was an INTJ. The conversation began with some small-scale mathematical discoveries that he and his dad had made, and from there it progressed to matters such as astronomy, physics, and personality theory. Eventually it was so obvious to everyone else at the table (a group likely composed exclusively of SJs) that we were different from them in some strange way that all their conversations simultaneously dropped at one point with one of them saying something like, "You guys are talking about things that we learn in school. Why would you talk about that right now?"

That was definitely a mentally stimulating conversation.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
111 Posts
I had a mentally stimulating conversation with an xNTP about Mayan scholarship. We both decided to learn to read Mayan glyphs by the end of the conversation xD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,320 Posts
Just about every second I spend with an INTJ friend of mine is mentally stimulating. I dunno, our personalities are a bit abrasive. I like it in controlled quantities. We would most likely kill one another if kept alone too long. Usually, I point out why a point he made is wrong with just anything he could have said, we start a debate, he points out that I misused a word out of context, we jump to dictionary.com to find the true meaning of the word to see who is actually right, we compare the real meaning, stick it back into the debate and continue.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
642 Posts
Just about every second I spend with an INTJ friend of mine is mentally stimulating. I dunno, our personalities are a bit abrasive. I like it in controlled quantities. We would most likely kill one another if kept alone too long. Usually, I point out why a point he made is wrong with just anything he could have said, we start a debate, he points out that I misused a word out of context, we jump to dictionary.com to find the "true" meaning of the word to see who is actually right, we compare the real meaning, stick it back into the debate and continue.
I hope that by "true" meaning, you actually mean "what is most commonly associated by this word." Words don't have "true" meanings and thinking so constitutes the etymological fallacy.

Also, if you are having a debate about the most commonly used meaning of a word, in many cases the dictionary is the last place you want to go to check it's meaning. For example, if you are arguing about the definition of the word "eudaimonia" or "logos," the authors of the dictionary probably do not have the prerequisite specialized knowledge to know of the varied and debated usage of these terms. Also, some words have a different usage in professional circles than their most common meaning in public discourse.


I don't have time to make this post any longer, but in sum, I would be very very careful using the dictionary as "proof" or even evidence that your understanding of a particular word is correct. Wikipedia is probably a better place to start in most instances (i.e. if you are debating the most common meaning(s) of vague words/concepts like love or communism).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,320 Posts
I hope that by "true" meaning, you actually mean "what is most commonly associated by this word." Words don't have "true" meanings and thinking so constitutes the etymological fallacy.

Also, if you are having a debate about the most commonly used meaning of a word, in many cases the dictionary is the last place you want to go to check it's meaning. For example, if you are arguing about the definition of the word "eudaimonia" or "logos," the authors of the dictionary probably do not have the prerequisite specialized knowledge to know of the varied and debated usage of these terms. Also, some words have a different usage in professional circles than their most common meaning in public discourse.


I don't have time to make this post any longer, but in sum, I would be very very careful using the dictionary as "proof" or even evidence that your understanding of a particular word is correct. Wikipedia is probably a better place to start in most instances (i.e. if you are debating the most common meaning(s) of vague words/concepts like love or communism).
Ironically, I take your side on the matter as this occurrence is exactly why we were debating about it to begin with. Unfortunately, I was not able to put it into words as you did.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
642 Posts
Or a debate, or link an article you found interesting, etc.
FORA.tv - Race vs. Class: The Future of Affirmative Action

I think NYU teacher Dalton Conley had by far the best arguments as well as the best solutions to the current problems and hostility caused by affirmative action. On the other side of the debate, Columbia University President held his own, but I was still much less impressed by his arguments than by Conley's. After having just finished Kahneman's psychology book " Thinking Fast and Slow" I can't help but notice apparent bias affecting people's beliefs. It seemed to me at least, the status quo bias likely affected Bollinger's arguments. He didn't give any justification for the current policy of admitting students due to having parents as alumni. I agree with Conley that both alumni based affirmative action (as it is in the UK and some other European countries) and race based affirmative action should be done away with.

McWhorter did fairly well in the debate too, but Bollinger clearly led the negative side of the debate (the side against race based affirmative action). On the affirmative end, I was extremely disappointed by Julian Bond's arguments. He didn't try to defend the philosophical assumption of moral desert that his arguments rested on. He also confused correlation with causation. As Conley explained, the reason why there is such a large disparity between black and white homicide, chance of death, chance of infant mortality etc is not because of race (today, at least ; 60-100 years ago things were obviously different - black people were lynched and terrorized because of their skin color). A lot of people who just happen to be black live in poor areas with high crime rates; it is not their skin color that is the cause of their high homicide rate; it is the fact that being born in these areas predisposes a person (whatever their race - black, asian, white, or latino) to a harder lifestyle.

Conley also explained, right before Bond swept into his long winded, pathos filled "argument," that the current system of affirmative action has not worked. Period. The difference in net assets between the average black and the average white man is greater than it was back in the civil rights era. (Conley explains this interesting piece of information in more detail in his book "In Being Black, Living in the Red). Also, black people are more than twice as likely as latinos to be beneficiaries of affirmative action under the current race based system. Moreover, the black people that do receive a.a. are almost entirely made up of the middle class or higher - those who need it least.

But I don't want to spoil too much of the debate! If you want to know more, including Dalton's proposed solution to the A.A. dilemma, you'll have to watch the video I linked above ;)


Ironically, I take your side on the matter as this occurrence is exactly why we were debating about it to begin with. Unfortunately, I was not able to put it into words as you did.
In that case, I won't have to wack you over the head with a book :p .

I would link him to the Wikipedia definition on etymological fallacy and try to get him to explain his argument in syllogistic form. So many people give long-winded arguments which sound convincing prima facie, but when forced to lay out the premises of their argument, they realize they don't have two feet to stand on.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top