Election 2018

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-29-2018, 06:53 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-29-2018, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Most of the above people are clearly Industrial Age.  Thus, using violence as a solution would be expected.  FDR is the cusp figure, who faced a double crisis.  

Sorry to interrupt, but how do you define the Industrial Age?  Wikipedia claims it started in 1760 without specifying an end date. 1991 looks plausible, since it marks the end of Bolshevism, an ideology designed for industrial workers above all. Orion's Arm has 1700-2000, which looks way to simplistic for me. My somewhat heretical choice is 2006, when MySpace kicked in and "You" (anonymous Internet user) was chosen as Time's person of the year. This marks a cultural transition to the Information Age, but as our global economy still uses fossils as the main energy source, one could argue we are still in the Industrial Age.

I originally started to incorporate waves of civilization as a result of The Third Wave.  That book incorporates the Agricultural age as centering on muscle powered weapons, writing and domesticated animal power driving the first wave.  The Industrial Age is the second wave, centered on chemical weapons, the printing press and steam.  The author is concerned more with the Information Age as the third wave with nukes, computers and renewable energy.  In addition, you might count hunter gatherer tribes as a wave zero.

World War II with the first nukes and code solving pre computers might reflect the cusp of the end of the Industrial Age, and thus beginning the Information Age transition, but creation of the internet would definitely put the Information Age transition as starting.  As with turning boundaries, the border is somewhat hard to exactly pin down. 

Note is possible to agree the waves exist without believing in every aspect and theory of the author.   I also incorporate the concept of civilizations without accepting all of Toffler's A Study of History or Huntington's Clash of Civilizations.  They combine with S&H's turnings to form a triple perspective on looking at history.  You have to remember all three perspectives, and consider that an Agricultural Age civilization may be very different from Industrial Age or Information Age, and what might be true about America might not be true about the Middle East.

Turnings are short term.  Ages are much longer term.  Civilizations divide by area.  To make sense of history, you have to be aware of all three.

It is certainly possible to argue where to put a boundary.  One could also say that transferring to the Industrial Age civilization is a lengthy process, with rejecting slavery occurring well after the start of the Enlightenment.  Why should the Information Age be different?  I am looking hard at beginnings where you seem more concerned with mature benchmarks.  There is room for both so long as one admits the process is underway and exists.

[David Horn]

(10-29-2018, 06:53 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-29-2018, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Most of the above people are clearly Industrial Age.  Thus, using violence as a solution would be expected.  FDR is the cusp figure, who faced a double crisis.  

Sorry to interrupt, but how do you define the Industrial Age?  Wikipedia claims it started in 1760 without specifying an end date. 1991 looks plausible, since it marks the end of Bolshevism, an ideology designed for industrial workers above all. Orion's Arm has 1700-2000, which looks way to simplistic for me. My somewhat heretical choice is 2006, when MySpace kicked in and "You" (anonymous Internet user) was chosen as Time's person of the year. This marks a cultural transition to the Information Age, but as our global economy still uses fossils as the main energy source, one could argue we are still in the Industrial Age.

Using my own criteria, I would bracket social/cultural ages based on rising acceptance and impact.  For the Industrial Age, the marker is difficult.  This was the first transition in ~12,000 years, and the philosophical and cultural norms actually changed before the full impact of the technological changes were fully felt.  The Transcendentals reacted to religion and culture on a spiritual level.  If the impact of industry was involved in that thinking, it was certainly not obvious.  If anything, it should have been the railroads, which began in earnest in the 1830s and were important and impactful by the 1850s.  Somewhere in that period is what can be called the beginning of the Industrial Age, in cultural terms at least.

The Information Age is a bit of a misnomer.  It's less about information, per se, and more about easy access to it, but that's a quibble.  The advent of computers is the technological precursor, but the cultural impacts were due to the rise of the PC, the internet and digital cellphones.  Has our thinking changed all that much due to Facebook and Twitter?  I don't think so.  So a marker for that transition is somewhere in the 1990-2005 range.  A follow-on Age will emerge soon, but what it will encompass and what it will be called is still TBD.

[David Horn]

(10-29-2018, 08:01 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Turnings are short term.  Ages are much longer term.  Civilizations divide by area.  To make sense of history, you have to be aware of all three.

I wonder if the pace of change will make your statement, true as it is today, obsolete in a relatively short period of time.  It's already the case that the saeculum may be longer than any New Age.  Can Turnings be far behind?

If we look at the pace so far, the Hunter/Gatherer Age lasted for many 10s to 100s of millennia, depending on your demark for the emergence of humanity.  The Agricultural Age lasted ~12 millennia.  The Industrial age, 150-200 years.  The Information Age already feels mature.  Obviously, the pace is rising fast.

[pbrower2a]

A question remains: will the information age overtake human capacity? Or will the limit of human intelligence itself stall progress?

Machine intelligence can now do tasks that a not-very-bright person can do, such as to take orders in a fast-food restaurant. The use of smart-phone apps to order ahead suggests that the not-very-cerebral act of taking orders may be something that people will not do much longer unless people are willing to pay for the privilege.

The Industrial Age clearly made life better on the average (although the ferocity and lethality of wars and persecutions has become more intense because the capacity for organization is much higher than it used to be). Industrial technology made necessities far cheaper and more easily available. Information can at most refine whatever exist and substitute machine minds for human minds.

I am tempted to believe that the Information Age feels mature because it can do little more to improve life except perhaps in scientific and medical research. How many channels of cable television do you need?

[Eric the Green]

(10-29-2018, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-28-2018, 11:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: FDR did not offer unity to the Nazis.
Lincoln did not offer unity to the confederates.
Washington did not offer unity to the King.
William did not offer unity to the Stewarts and Louis XIV
Elizabeth I did not offer unity to the Spanish or the Catholics.
Henry VII did not offer unity to Richard III.

One side won, the other lost. After that, a greater degree of unity was able to be created.

Most of the above people are clearly Industrial Age.  Thus, using violence as a solution would be expected.  FDR is the cusp figure, who faced a double crisis.  He indeed used violence against Hitler and company, and was likely correct that this was the only solution.  He did not use violence against the pending communist revolution of the Great Depression, but rather presided over a compromise between progressives and conservatives that was settled by Congress.

You are changing the subject again. That seems to b a favorite tactic of yours.

The subject was "unity," not "violence." We may be able to get through this 4T with less violence than previous ones, but the track record is poor. Still, as FDR showed, his tactic in dealing with his determined opposition during the 4T was not your suggested "let's just all get together and listen to each other and discuss things and find unity," as you saw in the video. He declared his intention to master his opponents. That's what Democrats need to do now again, not live under the delusion that we can talk and listen to them and just all get along and divisions can be healed. There's big money forces and entrenched ideologies and values behind the regressive forces today, just as there was then. They must be defeated politically--- and violently if they rebel violently, as they have threatened to do.

There is no evidence at all that an Information Age would be peaceful and an Industrial Age is violent, or as we were discussing, willing to "listen to each other." Maybe if the Green Meme were to attain power, which might be associated with the Information Age, that might be possible. But it takes a while for new memes to become dominant powers.

Quote:I have also looked at Europe of Lincoln's time for similar compromises.  Victoria and Bismarck were fairly conservative figures, but even they saw the point of giving the people more of the benefits of the Industrial Revolution to avoid the disruption of a communist revolution.  This was a win, actually, for the lords and robber barons, who got to retain their considerable power.  Slavery was also abandoned in Europe with far less violence.  A great deal of this was an ability to listen to the new morals and compromise.  A good many lives were saved.  A good deal of violence and autocratic rule was avoided.

None of that happened in a 4T. And you are talking about conservatives being willing to listen. The vast majority of conservatives today refuse to listen to anything any liberals say. You are insinuating that liberals today like me refuse to listen. I say instead that I know all about the opposition, all too well.

Quote:While you can certainly call the civil rights movement, the way the US government handled the domino theory and the feminist movement not crisis movements as they did nor occur in a crisis, they might be something unusual in that they caused a crisis sized values shift in the 2T and relatively quickly.  None of the classic declaring the new ideals in the 2T, but waiting for the 4T to see the values shifted by violence.  Major civilization changing bills were passed by Congress right away.  I anticipate that this is the wave of the future, that 2Ts will continue to show great changes and 4Ts will not.  Nukes and a faith that democracy can cause large shifts may have changed things.

It is too soon to be sure of the new age.  I have to limit myself to saying maybe my observations will hold for a while.  But at least the old Industrial Age patterns are failing.

And, oh yes, Lincoln did offer unity to the confederates... at gunpoint.  That was a major point, to preserve the Union.  Individual equality was another major point.  The man, and the times, were complicated.  Given time he would have offered unity, the equivalent of the Marshall Plan.  Instead, in the wake of his death, we saw the sort of hatred and intolerance you are advocating.

Hmm.  Come to think of it, FDR and his heirs did offer unity to the former Nazis in the form of the Marshall Plan and NATO.  Pursuing the sort of hatred you advocate would have invited disaster.  How did Churchill put it?

Winston Churchill Wrote:In War: Resolution,
In Defeat: Defiance,
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Good Will.

I am advocating what? Again, you are the one preaching unity while introducing insults into discussions. I am merely relating facts.

The Marshall Plan was 1T; what are you talking about? The 4T victories had been achieved by then, at home and abroad. You just don't want to face the fact that I am right on this point. 4Ts are not settled by compromise and listening to each other.

Quote:And Elizabeth I did allow considerable religious freedom, at least much more that occurred in the religiously intolerant immediate past.  Retaining sovereignty was another point.  Then again, the woman, and the times, were complicated.

But maybe Churchill had a point.  Well, we can't all be grey champions.  Maybe a few haters are necessary.

Elizabeth I was a brutal queen who imprisoned and killed dissenters. She won the battle against the Catholics at home and abroad.

[Eric the Green]

(10-29-2018, 06:53 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-29-2018, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Most of the above people are clearly Industrial Age.  Thus, using violence as a solution would be expected.  FDR is the cusp figure, who faced a double crisis.  

Sorry to interrupt, but how do you define the Industrial Age?  Wikipedia claims it started in 1760 without specifying an end date. 1991 looks plausible, since it marks the end of Bolshevism, an ideology designed for industrial workers above all. Orion's Arm has 1700-2000, which looks way to simplistic for me. My somewhat heretical choice is 2006, when MySpace kicked in and "You" (anonymous Internet user) was chosen as Time's person of the year. This marks a cultural transition to the Information Age, but as our global economy still uses fossils as the main energy source, one could argue we are still in the Industrial Age.

Historian Eric Hobsbawm said the industrial takeoff in Britain began in the early 1780s. His study is definitive. In 1760 Watt's steam engine had not even been invented. The Industrial Age did not start in 1760. Wikipedia gets things wrong sometimes.

I would say the advent of the world wide web in 1993 was a good date for the start of the Information Age, although the major tools were invented by the late 1960s.

The Green Meme, which arrived in the 1960s, is associated with the Information Age too. But the Greens have yet to attain appreciable power politically. The liberal Enlightenment of human rights is considered Orange, and it is dated from the late 17th century, but its social class the bourgeoisie did not start to really take over until the French Revolution, and even then suffered many reversals in Europe for the duration of that revolutionary cycle; even until 1872 when the 3rd French Republic, the first one that lasted, took over. So it took a while for the Enlightenment ideas and the class that championed them to truly take over power. In Britain too, constitutional changes at about that same time increased middle class liberal power there. And the North's victory in the American Civil War in 1865 cemented the triumph of liberal over the aristocratic, agricultural values that dominated Dixie.

The industrial age also took off in the 1780s, just before the French Revolution and exactly contemporary with USA independence, but even then it did not spread much beyond Britain until the 1840s and 50s, and beyond The West until the turn of the 20th century era at least.

And even then, the Orange Enlightenment/Industrial Age meme then began to split politically into bourgeois liberalism vs. proletarian socialism (which I call Lemon), and the two battled it out from then on, and still do today.

So if the Information Age is associated with the Green Meme that succeeds the Orange/Lemon, and the Orange/Lemon is Industrial, then we can be sure it will last a while longer and take time to truly dominate world affairs, and is not at all mature yet.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-29-2018, 05:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You are changing the subject again. That seems to b a favorite tactic of yours.

The subject was "unity," not "violence." We may be able to get through this 4T with less violence than previous ones, but the track record is poor. Still, as FDR showed, his tactic in dealing with his determined opposition during the 4T was not your suggested "let's just all get together and listen to each other and discuss things and find unity," as you saw in the video. He declared his intention to master his opponents. That's what Democrats need to do now again, not live under the delusion that we can talk and listen to them and just all get along and divisions can be healed. There's big money forces and entrenched ideologies and values behind the regressive forces today, just as there was then. They must be defeated politically--- and violently if they rebel violently, as they have threatened to do.

There is no evidence at all that an Information Age would be peaceful and an Industrial Age is violent, or as we were discussing, willing to "listen to each other." Maybe if the Green Meme were to attain power, which might be associated with the Information Age, that might be possible. But it takes a while for new memes to become dominant powers.

I am pushing a theory that the classic T4T patten which held reasonably well during the Industrial Age and for the Anglo American civilization will not hold in the Information Age and for all civilizations.  One cannot definitively prove or disprove the theory by demonstration yet.  The time of the fourth turning has not ended, so we cannot count violent crisis conflicts during the Information Age.  We can only watch the spiral of violence and say it has not increased beyond the lone nut level.  We can perhaps say why.  Nukes and a greater faith in democracy and non-violence may have rendered crisis conflicts obsolete.  If so, we will not see crisis conflicts as much or at all, but are more apt to see problems solved in the voting booth and during the 2T.

Saying violence was required or common during the Industrial Age 4Ts says noting about whether violence will be required or common during the Information Age.  Violence was common, necessary to shift the power of the older elites and to implement the new morals, but that is irrelevant today.   No matter how often you say things about the Industrial Age, it says nothing about the Information Age.

If I am correct, the transition to the new values will occur in the voting booth.  It almost occurred in 2016.  If Hillary had won, if eventually the Congress had gone blue reliably, there would have been a blue victory, an end to the see saw.  This did not happen.  The see saw went red again, most emphatically.  We agree that a longer term shift towards the blue must happen eventually.  Among other issues, global warming and the spiral of racist rhetoric leading to an unacceptable lone nut increase in violence must be addressed and will be addressed.  Eventually a shift in voting patterns will occur as more rural voters see this.

To my mind, it was not a coincidence that there was a switch to non-violence just as the nuke was invented and a trust in democracy achieved.  Civil rights, gender rights, how the domino theory was implemented and the environment came suddenly alive.  The lethal racism which was acceptable during the Jim Crow lynchings was suddenly not acceptable anymore.  Militarism also faded.  The habit of dominant western powers to start wars against other major powers at every opportunity faded.  The Information Age caused profound shifts which followers of S&H have commonly ignored.  Turnings are just held in more regard than ages here.  Too much regard is held to the common patterns of the old age continuing on in the new.

I am just wondering if the current blue tactics are wise.  If the issues are going to be resolved without crisis level violence, why antagonize the voters needed?  Why not be civil?  Why close the ears of the middle of the country?  Why spew hate that walks right into their defenses, and cases them to lock down a rejection of the coasts?  Why go crazy emotionally when all one needs is clear enough logic and self interest?

Or so thinks this INTP.

It is simply not productive.

[pbrower2a]

(10-30-2018, 06:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I am pushing a theory that the classic T4T patten which held reasonably well during the Industrial Age and for th Anglo American civilization will not hold in the Information Age and for all civilizations.  One cannot definitively prove or disprove the theory by demonstration yet.  The time of the fourth turning has not ended, so we cannot count violent crisis conflicts during the Information Age.  We can only watch the spiral of violence and say it has not increased.  We can perhaps say why.  Nukes and a greater faith in democracy and non-violence may have rendered crisis conflicts obsolete.  If so, we will not see crisis conflicts as much or at all, but are more apt to see problems solved in the voting booth and during the 2T.

It may not. First, the Information Age implies that raw labor is far less reliable as a means of supporting oneself. Remember that Karl Marx said something that nobody can deny whatever one's class identity or position on the political chart: the proletarian has nothing to offer to a capitalist order, or indeed any economic system, except his toil. People of limited education and modest intelligence have nothing to offer but toil.

It may surprise people now, but Henry Ford's $5 a day pay was more valuable in real terms than is the current starting wage in a Ford plant today. That is a century later, and Ford was hiring as raw labor as he could get away with to man his assembly lines. The $5 a day wage got one more living space ... and no expensive commute to work.  Maybe it is easier to meet basic human needs in America when there are 100 million people than when there are 350 million people.

Ford was a piece of work, but he paid enough that a worker did not have to consign his children to toil in a worse-paying sweatshop just to supplement the meager wages of his parents. His (and it was a very male environment) industrial laborer could have a non-working homemaker as a wife, which was good for keeping tabs on the kids.

But a century ago such things as automobiles, stoves, and refrigerators were still new, and were still being diffused to people who had never had one. Making such things was good for personal income above the level of starvation wages even if one was strictly labor.

Quote:Saying violence was required or common during the Industrial Age says noting about whether violence will be required or common during the Information Age.  Violence was common, necessary to shift the power of the older elites and to implement the new morals, but that is irrelevant today.

 
True -- but most of our political models formed in the Industrial Age. Thus liberalism, fascism, Communism, and various expressions of Third World Socialism. Capitalism and industrialization developed together, and industrialism established both a desire for pure capitalism among sweatshop exploiters and the socialist dreamers (including Marxists) who believed that industrial production and distribution would be better left to people who had genuine empathy for workers. With industrial capitalism and Marxism-Leninism also came bureaucracy, which one can cynically describe as the sophisticated and civilized way to do crude and barbarous things to people who have no real choice in the economic order. 

Information is not so benign as one might wish it were. It is normal human nature to seek a hero to solve the great problems of the time, and the same devices of information that can lead one to Martin Luther King can as easily lead one to Adolf Hitler. My ethical values lead me to a desire to promote Martin Luther King. Some people prefer the spiffy uniforms, the impressive pageantry, and the unification against enemies that Hitler offered and that King could never do. Many people find nothing scarier than equality with people that they have seen as pariahs either for being consigned to economic failure (Southern blacks) or being successful for seemingly all the wrong reasons (Jews, maybe the Chinese diaspora).

Most of us seek to impose some utopian dream from the Industrial Era upon a post-industrial world. Nothing says that such is any more effective than bringing the ways of a Renaissance Faire to the modern world except as a temporary sideshow.

Quote:If I am correct, the transition to the new values will occur in the voting booth.  It almost occurred in 2016.  If Hillary had won, if eventually the Congress had gone blue reliably, there would have been a blue victory, an end to the see saw.  This did not happen.  The see saw went red again, most emphatically.  We agree that a longer term shift towards the blue must happen eventually.  Among other issues, global warming and the spiral of racist rhetoric leading to an unacceptable lone nut increase in violence must be address and will be addressed.  Eventually a shift in voting patterns will occur as more rural voters see this.

But people can vote in an Orban, an Erdogan, or... Trump. On the other side it can also bring about an Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe.

I am not convinced that Hillary Clinton would have put an end to the see-saw of American politics. Democrats were not going to get the House of Representatives back, and any gain in the Senate would be reversed decisively two years later. Things would be better, to be sure, but our nation still has scorpions in its soul and will need to exorcise them. The Hard Right is still well-organized and has access to the most reliable currency in politics -- cash for buying access to the marketplace of ideas by buying the marketplace itself.

America still has elite people devoid of conscience and empathy, contemptuous of the common man, but rapacious for money and having unlimited appetites for personal indulgence. To be sure there are rich people with conscience who might use their great wealth to endow charitable, educational, and research institutions; on the other side there are people who would love to establish the inequality characteristic of a pre-industrial, aristocratic order in America in which proximity to the elite through kinship is the sole means of personal success, with everyone else being sweated, starved, and humiliated -- and anyone challenging such will get treated like a leader of a slave revolt when the masters retake power. Spartacus or Nat Turner? Off the toil of helpless people is to come easy money for a hereditary elite, and the rest of humanity gets to be dazzled (if it is stupid or hollow enough) with the displays of opulent splendor and decadent indulgence available to people who see others as livestock at best and vermin at worst. 

Quote:To my mind, it was not a coincidence that there was a switch to non-violence just as the nuke was invented and a trust in democracy achieved.  Civil rights, gender rights, how the domino theory was implemented and the environment came suddenly alive.  The lethal racism which was acceptable during the Jim Crow lynchings was suddenly not acceptable anymore.  Militarism also faded.  The habit of dominant western powers to start wars against other major powers at every opportunity faded.  The Information Age caused profound shifts which followers of S&H have commonly ignored.  Turnings are just held in more regard than ages here.  Too much regard is held to the common patterns of the old age continuing on in the new.

Wise people find atomic, biological, and chemical weapons scary as flintlock rifles weren't. A film like Doctor Strangelove demonstrates what happens when people have technological ability but no discretion.  Television cameras and a nationwide broadcasting system could show people as words alone could not do to demonstrate that democracy and Jim Crow practice were incompatible. Television also exposed how flawed a system America was fighting to protect in the Republic of Vietnam and how vulnerable American troops were in a country in which they were not welcome. Of course there was much more government control of the media during the Second World War, when the government decided what images of war Americans would get. We rarely got to see how vile Soviet behavior could be in conquered or even 'liberated' countries or how corrupt and despotic Chiang Kai-Shek was.

World War II was the last war for colonial empires, the war between colonial empires and would-be colonial empires to take over the empires of others or to turn independent countries into satellites. After World War II, colonial empires lost their romantic appeal to people who had lost many young lives and great resources to defend them. Peoples of the colonial empires realized that they did not need people in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Lisbon, Brussels, or Washington micromanaging things on their supposed behalf. Even keeping a puppet in power (like Reza Shah Pahlavi  or Erich Honecker) was suspect.

People may be willing to risk their lives to stop fascist mass murder or, for that matter, some aggressive power turning farmers who own their own land into serfs. They do not want to die for giant corporations to enforce their will upon subjected peoples. 

Quote:I am just wondering if the current blue tactics are wise.  If the issues are going to be resolved without crisis level violence, why antagonize the voters needed?  Why close the ears of the middle of the country?  Why spew hate that walks right into their defenses, and cases them to lock down a rejection of the coasts?  Why go crazy emotionally when all one needs is clear enough logic and self interest?

It is simply not productive.

The Red side has practically decided what is available to the Blue side. Clear logic? It might lead to such horrors  as social democracy, abortion on demand, regulation of the sale and possession of firearms and ammunition, acceptance of homosexuality, and challenges to a plutocracy. It might challenge superstition, economic hierarchy, wars for profit, and severe inequality. The Right offers a secularized Calvinism in which people are damned to poverty and deprivation by an economic equivalent of predestination. In an economic order becoming increasingly aristocratic in character (and this applies to management as well as inherited ownership), self interest is a privilege for a self-serving, exclusive elite.

The Red side believes in the formality of democratic institutions, but wants those to work in a way that many of us don't want.

Struggles of any kind are unproductive until they give a clear win to one side. Then, and only then, do they seem to solve anything at all.

[Eric the Green]

(10-30-2018, 06:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-29-2018, 05:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You are changing the subject again. That seems to b a favorite tactic of yours.

The subject was "unity," not "violence." We may be able to get through this 4T with less violence than previous ones, but the track record is poor. Still, as FDR showed, his tactic in dealing with his determined opposition during the 4T was not your suggested "let's just all get together and listen to each other and discuss things and find unity," as you saw in the video. He declared his intention to master his opponents. That's what Democrats need to do now again, not live under the delusion that we can talk and listen to them and just all get along and divisions can be healed. There's big money forces and entrenched ideologies and values behind the regressive forces today, just as there was then. They must be defeated politically--- and violently if they rebel violently, as they have threatened to do.

There is no evidence at all that an Information Age would be peaceful and an Industrial Age is violent, or as we were discussing, willing to "listen to each other." Maybe if the Green Meme were to attain power, which might be associated with the Information Age, that might be possible. But it takes a while for new memes to become dominant powers.

I am pushing a theory that the classic T4T patten which held reasonably well during the Industrial Age and for the Anglo American civilization will not hold in the Information Age and for all civilizations.  One cannot definitively prove or disprove the theory by demonstration yet.  The time of the fourth turning has not ended, so we cannot count violent crisis conflicts during the Information Age.  We can only watch the spiral of violence and say it has not increased beyond the lone nut level.  We can perhaps say why.  Nukes and a greater faith in democracy and non-violence may have rendered crisis conflicts obsolete.  If so, we will not see crisis conflicts as much or at all, but are more apt to see problems solved in the voting booth and during the 2T.

Pushing a new theory is quite welcome; however I don't think you can hold that since I might disagree with your theory, that I am an extremist who promotes violence. I may predict violence, but that doesn't mean I approve. Remember my prime function here is as a prophet with a good track record, and that prophecy is based on many things including T4T and astrology.

And if crises are resolved in the voting booth, that does not eliminate conflict, or dictate that conflicts will be resolved by two sides listening to each other and compromising. If voting is needed to resolve a crisis, then that implies one side outvoting the other.

The "information age" needs to be shown to correlate with nukes and a greater faith in democracy; I'm not sure that the prominence of computers in our economy means that violence is ended or much reduced in 4Ts. I don't discount the possibility of a general pattern of which the information age is a part, but then I think planetary and spiral dynamics are in play; a greater new meme is at work, a whole constellation of new paradigms that are not all based solely on the prevalence of computers. In other words, non-material social and philosophical/idealist causes as well as technological ones.

Quote:Saying violence was required or common during the Industrial Age 4Ts says nothing about whether violence will be required or common during the Information Age.  Violence was common, necessary to shift the power of the older elites and to implement the new morals, but that is irrelevant today.   No matter how often you say things about the Industrial Age, it says nothing about the Information Age.

I'm not sure of the physical cause behind your idea that industrial age is violent and information age is peaceful. Brower pointed out that the ideas of democracy and the new products of industry, born with the coming of the industrial age circa 1781, also contributed and still contribute to greater prosperity and peace. Information overload alone is a mixed blessing without greater wisdom and perspective. It scarcely needs to be mentioned the role that information age tech has played in political polarization today.

Quote:If I am correct, the transition to the new values will occur in the voting booth.  It almost occurred in 2016.  If Hillary had won, if eventually the Congress had gone blue reliably, there would have been a blue victory, an end to the see saw.  This did not happen.  The see saw went red again, most emphatically.  We agree that a longer term shift towards the blue must happen eventually.  Among other issues, global warming and the spiral of racist rhetoric leading to an unacceptable lone nut increase in violence must be addressed and will be addressed.  Eventually a shift in voting patterns will occur as more rural voters see this.

Quite so, we agree there.

Quote:To my mind, it was not a coincidence that there was a switch to non-violence just as the nuke was invented and a trust in democracy achieved.  Civil rights, gender rights, how the domino theory was implemented and the environment came suddenly alive.  The lethal racism which was acceptable during the Jim Crow lynchings was suddenly not acceptable anymore.  Militarism also faded.  The habit of dominant western powers to start wars against other major powers at every opportunity faded.  The Information Age caused profound shifts which followers of S&H have commonly ignored.  Turnings are just held in more regard than ages here.  Too much regard is held to the common patterns of the old age continuing on in the new.

Nuclear weapons have made world wars between major powers obsolete, and yet wars are still very common.

Quote:I am just wondering if the current blue tactics are wise.  If the issues are going to be resolved without crisis level violence, why antagonize the voters needed?  Why not be civil?  Why close the ears of the middle of the country?  Why spew hate that walks right into their defenses, and cases them to lock down a rejection of the coasts?  Why go crazy emotionally when all one needs is clear enough logic and self interest?

Or so thinks this INTP.

It is simply not productive.

Thinks this INTP, it does not appear that logic and self-interest have much bearing on the voting habits of Republicans. I don't think the blue side is spewing hate. Calling the red side on its hate and lies is called for. We can hope some independent voters can respond to fact, logic, and self interest that depends on community interest. So the blues keep putting it out.

The blues are much more civil than the reds, but people are human and need sometimes to hit back when struck. One has to make allowances; we humans are still too primitive to expect sainthood from them. There will always be a few who lash out, like antifa is accused of doing, especially if democratic channels are closed, as the reds are trying to accomplish. We can't let the red paint all the blues as antifa. We can't let the reds get away with their lies and hate; the power of Trump and his rallies and those like him is too powerful to ignore. Once he gets his crowd going, a monster is released, not unlike those released by Hitler and Mussolini. We can't underestimate the power of the hate on the other side. We can respond as Dr. King asked, if we can. It's not easy to do. And Dr. King did not fail to respond to his enemies and critics with the stark realities and the facts. It's going to take a great mobilization to defeat the red side. That's job one in this 4T. And part of that is motivation by pointing out how dangerous the other side is. Both sides do it; it's part of the election game now, along with the money race.

[Eric the Green]

(10-30-2018, 06:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-29-2018, 05:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You are changing the subject again. That seems to b a favorite tactic of yours.

The subject was "unity," not "violence." We may be able to get through this 4T with less violence than previous ones, but the track record is poor. Still, as FDR showed, his tactic in dealing with his determined opposition during the 4T was not your suggested "let's just all get together and listen to each other and discuss things and find unity," as you saw in the video. He declared his intention to master his opponents. That's what Democrats need to do now again, not live under the delusion that we can talk and listen to them and just all get along and divisions can be healed. There's big money forces and entrenched ideologies and values behind the regressive forces today, just as there was then. They must be defeated politically--- and violently if they rebel violently, as they have threatened to do.

There is no evidence at all that an Information Age would be peaceful and an Industrial Age is violent, or as we were discussing, willing to "listen to each other." Maybe if the Green Meme were to attain power, which might be associated with the Information Age, that might be possible. But it takes a while for new memes to become dominant powers.

I am pushing a theory that the classic T4T patten which held reasonably well during the Industrial Age and for the Anglo American civilization will not hold in the Information Age and for all civilizations.  One cannot definitively prove or disprove the theory by demonstration yet.  The time of the fourth turning has not ended, so we cannot count violent crisis conflicts during the Information Age.  We can only watch the spiral of violence and say it has not increased beyond the lone nut level.  We can perhaps say why.  Nukes and a greater faith in democracy and non-violence may have rendered crisis conflicts obsolete.  If so, we will not see crisis conflicts as much or at all, but are more apt to see problems solved in the voting booth and during the 2T.

Saying violence was required or common during the Industrial Age 4Ts says noting about whether violence will be required or common during the Information Age.  Violence was common, necessary to shift the power of the older elites and to implement the new morals, but that is irrelevant today.   No matter how often you say things about the Industrial Age, it says nothing about the Information Age.

If I am correct, the transition to the new values will occur in the voting booth.  It almost occurred in 2016.  If Hillary had won, if eventually the Congress had gone blue reliably, there would have been a blue victory, an end to the see saw.  This did not happen.  The see saw went red again, most emphatically.  We agree that a longer term shift towards the blue must happen eventually.  Among other issues, global warming and the spiral of racist rhetoric leading to an unacceptable lone nut increase in violence must be addressed and will be addressed.  Eventually a shift in voting patterns will occur as more rural voters see this.

To my mind, it was not a coincidence that there was a switch to non-violence just as the nuke was invented and a trust in democracy achieved.  Civil rights, gender rights, how the domino theory was implemented and the environment came suddenly alive.  The lethal racism which was acceptable during the Jim Crow lynchings was suddenly not acceptable anymore.  Militarism also faded.  The habit of dominant western powers to start wars against other major powers at every opportunity faded.  The Information Age caused profound shifts which followers of S&H have commonly ignored.  Turnings are just held in more regard than ages here.  Too much regard is held to the common patterns of the old age continuing on in the new.

I am just wondering if the current blue tactics are wise.  If the issues are going to be resolved without crisis level violence, why antagonize the voters needed?  Why not be civil?  Why close the ears of the middle of the country?  Why spew hate that walks right into their defenses, and cases them to lock down a rejection of the coasts?  Why go crazy emotionally when all one needs is clear enough logic and self interest?

Or so thinks this INTP.

It is simply not productive.

Remember also that I also wrote in my book that the new age would mean an age of peace might come. So I did take account of the change of ages and not just the saeculum.

From my perspective, there is also the cycle of revolution, which began a new cycle in the sixties. That's when the green-peace ideal took hold. This was arguably also when the information age began, in so far as many of the inventions on which it is based were made then. There is also a cycle of civilization lasting 493 years, which began in 1892, and the 2160 or so years in what is known as a "new age" that is supposed to be dawning these days.

Looking at the spiral and planetary dynamics, this new cycle of revolution is called the Green meme. I associated the gradual discovery of Pluto with the Green meme, not as an astrological influence per se, but as a symbol of the phases in our evolution. Discovery of a new planet means that both a new level of consciousness and social organization starts to come into society. The discovery of Pluto in 1930 coincided with the discovery of nuclear energy and much of modern physics, and soon thereafter the development of the nuclear bomb. Its use by the USA in World War II was so far the last, and its danger has likely made major wars between great powers obsolete.

Wars had also been reduced for a few decades after the Vienna Conference in 1815, and were limited to national unification wars in the 1860s/1871, and the small wars that preceded World War I. So they were already in decline, but getting more and more deadly, as in the American civil wars and WWI.

The smaller wars continue, however, despite the greenpeace, democratic, nuclear and information age trends since world war two, so a prediction I have made of a possible smaller war or two for the USA in our 4T in about 2025 is not out of line with the trend.

An article posted in the astrology forum here relates how Ken Wilber thought the Green meme failed to a large extent, because of its expression as post-modernism and its exaggerated emphasis on identity politics and wholesale anti-hierarchy attitudes.

The information age seems to have increased the polarization and conflict within society, sometimes quite violently, though not necessarily violently in the USA--- yet.

https://www.pbs.org/video/the-facebook-d...wo-i7efro/

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/artic...-producer/

Why did the information age not bring the world together, as Zuckerberg and facebook thought it would?

They were "too idealistic," they admit. The real error was this: the continuing delusion that technology can solve our problems. It doesn't. It just gives us tools which are used according only to our social, moral and spiritual human progress. "Building" tech tools will not "bring us together" as Zuckerberg hopes.

This fact was greatly emphasized and proclaimed during the 2T Awakening era. But millennials like Zuckerberg and his colleagues do not have the background of this Awakening, because it has been so suppressed and discredited.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-30-2018, 01:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Pushing a new theory is quite welcome; however I don't think you can hold that since I might disagree with your theory, that I am an extremist who promotes violence. I may predict violence, but that doesn't mean I approve. Remember my prime function here is as a prophet with a good track record, and that prophecy is based on many things including T4T and astrology.

Nukes make crisis wars between two major powers unlikely.  Nukes have not to date shown any sign of stopping proxy wars, so total peace remains distant.  I propose this makes the Information Age more peaceful, but not totally peaceful.  Not even close.  

We used to need violence to curb elites who declined to move without it.  Thus, we had wars like the US Revolution and US Civil War in the Industrial Age.  Kings and Slaveholders do not lead autocratically democracies in the Information Age.  Thus, there is no need to remove them.  

Elites still exist and the rural voters have recently supported them.  Oh, yes.  But would they defy the Congress if it passed a tax scheme that did not give the elites a vast division of wealth, if they passed a strong carbon tax that provides motive to switch to renewable and pays for cleanup, if they got aggressive in outlawing gun ownership by people who had been judged a deadly threat by mental health professionals?  I do not perceive them as fighting a crisis level war over any issue.  (Well, if Congress tried to ignore the Second Amendment, it would get close...)  The spiral of violence is stuck at lone nut and shows no sign of moving beyond that level.  Thus, we are not likely to fight wars over most issues that can be resolved at the voting booth, which are all of the hot issues.

(10-30-2018, 01:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Thinks this INTP, it does not appear that logic and self-interest have much bearing on the voting habits of Republicans. I don't think the blue side is spewing hate. Calling the red side on its hate and lies is called for. We can hope some independent voters can respond to fact, logic, and self interest that depends on community interest. So the blues keep putting it out.

The blues are much more civil than the reds, but people are human and need sometimes to hit back when struck. One has to make allowances; we humans are still too primitive to expect sainthood from them. There will always be a few who lash out, like antifa is accused of doing, especially if democratic channels are closed, as the reds are trying to accomplish. We can't let the red paint all the blues as antifa. We can't let the reds get away with their lies and hate; the power of Trump and his rallies and those like him is too powerful to ignore. Once he gets his crowd going, a monster is released, not unlike those released by Hitler and Mussolini. We can't underestimate the power of the hate on the other side. We can respond as Dr. King asked, if we can. It's not easy to do. And Dr. King did not fail to respond to his enemies and critics with the stark realities and the facts. It's going to take a great mobilization to defeat the red side. That's job one in this 4T. And part of that is motivation by pointing out how dangerous the other side is. Both sides do it; it's part of the election game now, along with the money race.

Hmm...  I wonder.  You seem to put people in stereotypes emotionally as you Feel and Judge them.  Your posting of TV skits as an argument for blue thought is more Feeling than Thinking.  You Judge people as fitting a niche rather than trying to Perceive how they actually are.  You do not react or respond to Thinking arguments that disagree with your worldview.  

Are you sure you are an INTP?  The Myers Briggs tests are vulnerable to people who have fooled themselves.

[Eric the Green]

It should be pointed out that our supposed and hoped-for "greater faith in democracy" (Bob Butler) seems to be undergoing a reversal. I don't know far or for how long it will go. The Arab Spring rising in 2011 resulted in progress only in Tunisia, with warlord-ruled anarchy so far in Libya, brutal authoritarian rule in Egypt, genocidal terror by Assad in Syria, deadly civil war in Yemen, the rise and fall of the brutal sectarian Islamic State, and suppression in Bahrain. The risings continued in Turkey, Brazil and Ukraine. In the former two countries the people elected authoritarian rulers, and in the third the Russians fomented a counter-rebellion in the east. A dictator has seized power in China, reversing some democratic gains. In the Phillippines a ruler has seized power who carries out state killings. In Eastern Europe, authoritarian regimes have been elected. In Southeast Asia, tyranny has replaced budding democracy. A nationalist right-wing sectarian party rules India. In the USA, there's voter-suppression and right-wing takeover of the courts, with a far right TV star demagogue given the presidency by an outdated voting system.

[Eric the Green]

(10-31-2018, 03:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-30-2018, 01:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Pushing a new theory is quite welcome; however I don't think you can hold that since I might disagree with your theory, that I am an extremist who promotes violence. I may predict violence, but that doesn't mean I approve. Remember my prime function here is as a prophet with a good track record, and that prophecy is based on many things including T4T and astrology.

Nukes make crisis wars between two major powers unlikely.  Nukes have not to date shown any sign of stopping proxy wars, so total peace remains distant.  I propose this makes the Information Age more peaceful, but not totally peaceful.  Not even close.  

We used to need violence to curb elites who declined to move without it.  Thus, we had wars like the US Revolution and US Civil War in the Industrial Age.  Kings and Slaveholders do not lead autocratically democracies in the Information Age.  Thus, there is no need to remove them.  

Elites still exist and the rural voters have recently supported them.  Oh, yes.  But would they defy the Congress if it passed a tax scheme that did not give the elites a vast division of wealth, if they passed a strong carbon tax that provides motive to switch to renewable and pays for cleanup, if they got aggressive in outlawing gun ownership by people who had been judged a deadly threat by mental health professionals?  I do not perceive them as fighting a crisis level war over any issue.  (Well, if Congress tried to ignore the Second Amendment, it would get close...)  The spiral of violence is stuck at lone nut and shows no sign of moving beyond that level.  Thus, we are not likely to fight wars over most issues that can be resolved at the voting booth, which are all of the hot issues.

(10-30-2018, 01:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Thinks this INTP, it does not appear that logic and self-interest have much bearing on the voting habits of Republicans. I don't think the blue side is spewing hate. Calling the red side on its hate and lies is called for. We can hope some independent voters can respond to fact, logic, and self interest that depends on community interest. So the blues keep putting it out.

The blues are much more civil than the reds, but people are human and need sometimes to hit back when struck. One has to make allowances; we humans are still too primitive to expect sainthood from them. There will always be a few who lash out, like antifa is accused of doing, especially if democratic channels are closed, as the reds are trying to accomplish. We can't let the red paint all the blues as antifa. We can't let the reds get away with their lies and hate; the power of Trump and his rallies and those like him is too powerful to ignore. Once he gets his crowd going, a monster is released, not unlike those released by Hitler and Mussolini. We can't underestimate the power of the hate on the other side. We can respond as Dr. King asked, if we can. It's not easy to do. And Dr. King did not fail to respond to his enemies and critics with the stark realities and the facts. It's going to take a great mobilization to defeat the red side. That's job one in this 4T. And part of that is motivation by pointing out how dangerous the other side is. Both sides do it; it's part of the election game now, along with the money race.

Hmm...  I wonder.  You seem to put people in stereotypes emotionally as you Feel and Judge them.  Your posting of TV skits as an argument for blue thought is more Feeling than Thinking.  You Judge people as fitting a niche rather than trying to Perceive how they actually are.  You do not react or respond to Thinking arguments that disagree with your worldview.  

Are you sure you are an INTP?  The Myers Briggs tests are vulnerable to people who have fooled themselves.

Your comments about me and others always say more about me than about you, and demonstrate the same qualities in yourself that you criticize in others. 

I am something of an expert on that test, and have taken it many times. It's true that in my T and F scores the margins are razor thin, but predominantly the T usually wins out. If you could appreciate all the thought designs I have discovered, you could see that I fit the type very well. Architect, philosopher, designer; that's always been me, even though I veered toward feeling in the late sixties and that time left its mark on me.

I am very happy that, in the midst of such deception and tyranny and the utter banal foolishness in the White House and congress, that I can watch and share the comics who make it more bearable by subjecting our leaders to ridicule and unmasking their foolishness. Meyers, Colbert, Maher and Oliver are masters of their craft, and these times would not be bearable without them. I'm glad someone in the media is telling the truth to offset all the bullshit from the far right media.

I don't know how far the resistance would go if the congress swerved to the center-left. Past patterns might continue, and they might be mitigated to some extent by some features of our new age. I can only make the best prediction I can, and others can make theirs, and we'll see what happens. I can't disagree with your scenario, and hope for the best, but I can't be sure which one will happen.

You don't realize the degree of division, polarization, and far-right fanaticism that has this country spellbound in its grip, and now heightened by Trump's deliberate stoking of it. Others have pointed this out to you as well. It is not my fault if I realize that there's a lot of folks today who can't be reasoned with. Heck, it's even true for most people online most of the time. There is inherent worth and value in each human being. I hold that as an article of faith and principle. Nevertheless, the practical reality today is that we are divided into two tribes and further into single-issue voters, many of whom can't be reached. It's the proverbial (Paul Newman film quote by Strother Martin) "failure to communicate." I'm afraid that's what "we've got," and it may end up that somebody "gets it." But, there are some people who are still open enough to listen, including the many independent voters whose ranks have swelled as the parties have polarized.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-01-2018, 03:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-31-2018, 03:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm...  I wonder.  You seem to put people in stereotypes emotionally as you Feel and Judge them.  Your posting of TV skits as an argument for blue thought is more Feeling than Thinking.  You Judge people as fitting a niche rather than trying to Perceive how they actually are.  You do not react or respond to Thinking arguments that disagree with your worldview.  

Are you sure you are an INTP?  The Myers Briggs tests are vulnerable to people who have fooled themselves.

Your comments about me and others always say more about me than about you, and demonstrate the same qualities in yourself that you criticize in others. 

I am something of an expert on that test, and have taken it many times. It's true that in my T and F scores the margins are razor thin, but predominantly the T usually wins out. If you could appreciate all the thought designs I have discovered, you could see that I fit the type very well. Architect, philosopher, designer; that's always been me, even though I veered toward feeling in the late sixties and that time left its mark on me.

I am very happy that, in the midst of such deception and tyranny and the utter banal foolishness in the White House and congress, that I can watch and share the comics who make it more bearable by subjecting our leaders to ridicule and unmasking their foolishness. Meyers, Colbert, Maher and Oliver are masters of their craft, and these times would not be bearable without them. I'm glad someone in the media is telling the truth to offset all the bullshit from the far right media.

I don't know how far the resistance would go if the congress swerved to the center-left. Past patterns might continue, and they might be mitigated to some extent by some features of our new age. I can only make the best prediction I can, and others can make theirs, and we'll see what happens. I can't disagree with your scenario, and hope for the best, but I can't be sure which one will happen.

A razor thin score might explain it.

Mind you, there is nothing wrong with Feelers or Judgers.   You often want a good mix of types.  Judgers might quickly answer a problem while Peceptives are still dithering.  Feelers are better people persons, while Thinkers have (hopefully) sound logic.  It takes all types.

It does occur to me that classic S&H turning theory is a Judger's theory.  There are eight stereotypes in the theory: Prophet, Nomad, Hero, Artist, High, Awakening, Unraveling and Crisis.  The merit of the theory rests on whether the stereotypes fit reality, whether they make accurate predictions.  This has always rubbed me a bit wrong.  Even if a stereotype broadly holds true, often enough they don't, and it does not fit well the idea of how one should be.  And, of course, if you change civilizations or ages, the patterns might not hold true at all.  You must double check against reality.

[Eric the Green]

Judging can be a bit misleading as a term, because what it means on the MBTI test is decisiveness, not being judgmental. It can be severe, since a Judger prefers order and discipline for self and others. Perceptive, the opposite pole, means openness to new information and preference to be unscheduled and spontaneous. Even though some people may find me opinionated and intolerant, I am definitely P from a lifestyle point of view. I prefer to be unscheduled, unplanned and freewheeling, and the reason I have opinions is partly because I am open enough to what's going on.

So although S&H might lean J, it's really the N element that exhibits itself most in the theory, insofar as the theory uses archetypes. Skeptics would call them stereotypes, since it's true that typing people and situations has its limits, but archetype is a more fair term that gives N its due. S&H theory is also empirical, because it is based on biographies of real people, but the eight types, or any list of types, is an N approach. It's called iNtuitive, but again the term is a bit misleading. It's not like eastern zen kinds of intuition; Zen is more like P. INtuition in Jungian and MBTI terms is Western intuition; in other words it's Platonic. It sees the general, the essential form, the abstract, the possible, the imaginative, the conceptual, the forest rather than the trees, designing rather than building. S-Sensing, the opposite MBTI term, is empirical and sense-based realism. A theory like the four turnings and four generational archetypes, leans N.

If you question my credentials as a TP type, and think I am FJ, perhaps with your empirical values one might wonder if you aren't really an S type. But then, maybe you really prefer to work with ideas rather than with things you can touch and see.

[beechnut79]

(11-02-2018, 01:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Judging can be a bit misleading as a term, because what it means on the MBTI test is decisiveness, not being judgmental. It can be severe, since a Judger prefers order and discipline for self and others. Perceptive, the opposite pole, means openness to new information and preference to be unscheduled and spontaneous. Even though some people may find me opinionated and intolerant, I am definitely P from a lifestyle point of view. I prefer to be unscheduled, unplanned and freewheeling, and the reason I have opinions is partly because I am open enough to what's going on.

So although S&H might lean J, it's really the N element that exhibits itself most in the theory, insofar as the theory uses archetypes. Skeptics would call them stereotypes, since it's true that typing people and situations has its limits, but archetype is a more fair term that gives N its due. S&H theory is also empirical, because it is based on biographies of real people, but the eight types, or any list of types, is an N approach. It's called iNtuitive, but again the term is a bit misleading. It's not like eastern zen kinds of intuition; Zen is more like P. INtuition in Jungian and MBTI terms is Western intuition; in other words it's Platonic. It sees the general, the essential form, the abstract, the possible, the imaginative, the conceptual, the forest rather than the trees, designing rather than building. S-Sensing, the opposite MBTI term, is empirical and sense-based realism. A theory like the four turnings and four generational archetypes, leans N.

If you question my credentials as a TP type, and think I am FJ, perhaps with your empirical values one might wonder if you aren't really an S type. But then, maybe you really prefer to work with ideas rather than with things you can touch and see.

Which one of Jung's personality types do you feel corresponds most closely with what is commonly known as Type A, those extremely goal oriented folks who can never seem to relax? They have pretty much ruled the world ever since the mid-1980s, haven't they?

[beechnut79]

I just got done taking a quiz and was determined to be Type ENFP. Whatever that means to you folks who are quite versed in this topic. Would love to hear your thoughts on this personality type and what it means.

[beechnut79]

Thought that I would include this passage from my test results:

Extravert(12%) iNtuitive(9%) Feeling(28%) Perceiving(12%)
You have slight preference of Extraversion over Introversion (12%)
You have slight preference of Intuition over Sensing (9%)
You have moderate preference of Feeling over Thinking (28%)
You have slight preference of Perceiving over Judging (12%)

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-02-2018, 09:47 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: I just got done taking a quiz and was determined to be Type ENFP. Whatever that means to you folks who are quite versed in this topic. Would love to hear your thoughts on this personality type and what it means.

I might as well point you at an ENFP outline.  The pros can say more about this than I can.  If there is any area you agree or disagree with particularly, I could comment.  The pro sites do tend to accent the positive.  They try to let people feel good about whatever they are.

I use Myers Brigs more in playing fantasy role play games like Dungeons and Dragons than anywhere else.  About midway though the character building process, I know enough about the character to come up with one of the 16 types, and I will scan the outline to refine the character and pick out a few things to emphasize.  I don't make myself slave to it though.

This site does have a lot of fans of the theory.  I suspect that is because there is some resemblance to turning theory.

[Eric the Green]

(11-02-2018, 09:29 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(11-02-2018, 01:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Judging can be a bit misleading as a term, because what it means on the MBTI test is decisiveness, not being judgmental. It can be severe, since a Judger prefers order and discipline for self and others. Perceptive, the opposite pole, means openness to new information and preference to be unscheduled and spontaneous. Even though some people may find me opinionated and intolerant, I am definitely P from a lifestyle point of view. I prefer to be unscheduled, unplanned and freewheeling, and the reason I have opinions is partly because I am open enough to what's going on.

So although S&H might lean J, it's really the N element that exhibits itself most in the theory, insofar as the theory uses archetypes. Skeptics would call them stereotypes, since it's true that typing people and situations has its limits, but archetype is a more fair term that gives N its due. S&H theory is also empirical, because it is based on biographies of real people, but the eight types, or any list of types, is an N approach. It's called iNtuitive, but again the term is a bit misleading. It's not like eastern zen kinds of intuition; Zen is more like P. INtuition in Jungian and MBTI terms is Western intuition; in other words it's Platonic. It sees the general, the essential form, the abstract, the possible, the imaginative, the conceptual, the forest rather than the trees, designing rather than building. S-Sensing, the opposite MBTI term, is empirical and sense-based realism. A theory like the four turnings and four generational archetypes, leans N.

If you question my credentials as a TP type, and think I am FJ, perhaps with your empirical values one might wonder if you aren't really an S type. But then, maybe you really prefer to work with ideas rather than with things you can touch and see.

Which one of Jung's personality types do you feel corresponds most closely with what is commonly known as Type A, those extremely goal oriented folks who can never seem to relax? They have pretty much ruled the world ever since the mid-1980s, haven't they?

Probably the EST types; ESTJ "the supervisor" and ESTP "the entrepreneur." ENTJ too, "the field marshall"