12-21-2018, 12:29 PM
(12-21-2018, 02:01 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(12-21-2018, 12:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(12-20-2018, 07:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Under the Myers Briggs system, I view myself as a T, a Thinker. Dealing with ideas such as history or politics is my strength. Dealing with people, relationships, emotion and all that touchy feely stuff is not. This is part of why I am willing to throw away personal attack posts, posts which criticize other people by name. I am not good at it particularly. That is not the purpose of the site. That is not my purpose.I'd say that you're a weak "T" and your personal feelings and attachments get in the of your thinking and judgement at times. As a general rule, reds don't fling or apply false accusations freely with no concern of consequences. We are used to being around reddish people who frown on that stuff, Reds seek truth, red's gather in information and sift through information, learn and decide truth then use truth and stick with truth they've learned or the truth that they know of relating to them which blues don't seem to like or be able to emotionally accept and get upset or angry about reds. Red's aren't stupid people. Reds listen, but agreeing and accepting what blues have to say or believe is another matter.
I have learned that people with different world views are not likely to properly understand one another. Their perception will be off, their ideas of the other wrong. That does leave one open, no matter how sincerely one is attempting to pin someone else, with the impression of lying and slander. You mischaracterized me badly and continue to do so.
Even when one sticks with more abstract groups and mentions no names, it is a problem. Blues will badly misunderstand the motives of a red person, and vice versa. You get vile stereotypes more often that any real truth. If some blues will loudly proclaim what reds are driven by, they are often badly mistaken. Reds are little different. Neither group in general attempts to listen.
Anyway, that is were I am at.
I see both reds and blues as having realistically positive views of themselves and members of their own group, but much weaker views of each other, shallow to the point of being stereotypes. Understanding the different other is hard. Most don't try. These days, the easy vile stereotype is too often made available by various groups.
Note how Eric came in and reversed a lot of what you had to say. Eric believes in the blue worldview sincerely, and believes what he is saying is true. This questionable impression of the political opposite group is typical with extremists who have latched onto one view. Your complaint that most blues don't listen is generally valid. You have to be aware that this is not a uniquely blue trait, but one that is widely shared, and not just by the red and blue. As Cynic demonstrated, it is possible to buy into the autocratic way of perceiving things, to see that as uniquely valid in the same way most Americans buy into the red or blue. I do not agree with the Agricultural Age world view, but I can see that Cynic has bought into it, JPT bought into one possible literal interpretation of the Bible, Mikebert into the scientific world view, etc...
I see that people have to try a lot harder to push those levels of sincerity onto world views which are seen as alien, absurd and wrong.
Anyway, you won't get me unless you accept me as an INTP who sincerely believes in human rights, democracy, equality, Keynes, and environmentalism. If you do not accept that people who disagree with you have positive views of themselves, if you try to project bad views and stereotypes on them, you will remain lost in the wilderness. I'm more Whiggish than most blues, less modern in some ways, but lean blue. Most blues have not thought through where blues came from, and demonize rival thoughts, but if you presume sincerity and truly listen to what people say about their own motivation you will go far in attributing motivation accurately.
You said brower was indulging in a vile stereotype, but I think it's more likely that he, like myself, has observed the increasingly extreme, fanatical and unconcerned behavior of a lot of red folks, and their politicians, and is just not as optimistic about the prospects for better behavior these days as you seem to be.
I don't disagree that people we disagree with have positive views of themselves. They have a right to that view and I am in no position to judge them and say they are not positive people, but I can disagree with their views and notice that they are stuck in some political views that appear to be based on prejudice more than reality. Being an INTP as we both are does not imply that we are any better in any way than those of other types, just in case you forgot that tenet of MBTI. Maybe that "turbulent vs. assertive" scale indicates how in control people are of their fears, cravings and reactions. Being a thinking type in no way implies any greater control of those reactive emotions than feeling types have.
It is easy to understand the motivations and concerns that reds tend to have, and also to see where they go wrong in how they deal with those motivations, or focus too narrowly. Many do not vote their interests, but are caught up in politics that is deceptive. A primary problem, as we blues see it, with the reds, is their philosophy that, although they may claim to have concerns for the other guys, who may be poor, black, hispanic, etc., they don't want their tax money going to help them get "free stuff." I understand that point of view just fine. I just don't agree with how dedicated they are to it, how fanatical they are about it these days. I don't agree that this view provides the best solutions for society. I don't agree that individuals acting by themselves and for themselves always provides that "invisible hand" that leads to prosperity for everyone; I think it often means that the wealthy (and the white males) get all the chips.
So that makes me at least somewhat "socialist" in their eyes, and that's why they vote against the candidates that I prefer. I think it's necessary for the government to provide some basic assistance to people in need, and that I am not so confident in myself and my fortunes that I won't be in that position someday, nor will my friends. Social insurance is prudent. Nor do I have confidence in the bosses that they will always be fair to people, rather than primarily interested in their own success. Having seen bosses be unfair to me and others many times, I don't believe in their willingness to be fair without government oversight in the name of the people. I don't agree that I should have to explain this over and over, without the reds getting these points and yet still voting for candidates who profess this libertarian economics philosophy.
Boy this site is slow today!
I also notice that many reds are themselves bosses or owners of smaller companies, or otherwise own property, and because of this or other reasons they have had experience with government that they thought was unfair to them, or that they are not happy about. That motivates them to be skeptical of government's behavior, and more prey to slogans like the ones Galen posts that if we can't have confidence in bosses or owners to behave, we can't have confidence in government people to behave either. I agree we can't have confidence in them, but that just means it's up to the people to exercize their power over the government to make sure they are not corrupt or inefficient. It is our government and we do have a vote.
We can vote in the market too with our dollars, but that doesn't seem to work as well as the libertarians think. We don't have control over what alternatives are provided in the market. Some say our choices in elections are limited too. As I see it, today that is largely because the libertarian philosophy does not allow this, because their Republican representatives are fixing the voting process in various ways to favor themselves. We see this most blatantly today in some states like Wisconsin, North Carolina, Texas, etc. We see a Republican-appointed Supreme Court uphold limiting our voting rights today in the name of libertarian principles (money is speech, for example).