Governing Blunders - Part 1

by hillary_step 85 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  onacruse

  Euph:

  given all the above, how can you categorically deny that a difference in averages may have a genetic root?

  Indeed, it may! I just haven't seen any definitive evidence that it is.

  From what little I've studied in sociology and psychology, I'm much more convinced that behavioral differences and our "pre-conceived" notions of the limits of, and capacity for, self-accomplishment, are "nurture," and not "nature."

  The hardest chains to break are the chains that others have put upon us, and which we have accepted as our own.

  Craig
• 

  Euphemism

  Hillary wrote:What I question is that one can seperate the world into two camps, 'thinkers' and 'feelers' and that the 'thinkers' are men and the f'eelers' are women and because the 'feelers' are women they are happier working in subservience to the 'thinkers.

  I certainly wouldn't agree with that either! I don't see where Bradley or anyone else in this thread claimed that, however. So I'm a bit puzzled at your disagreement with Bradley. But that's between you and him.

  Onacruse... have you read Robert Wright's The Moral Animal? I'm halfway through it right now; and while it is fundamentally speculative (as most psychology and sociology is), it opened my eyes to how much can plausibly be explained as a function of genes. If you haven't read it, I'd highly recommend it.
• 

  hillary_step

  Euphemism,

  I wrote :

  What I question is that one can seperate the world into two camps, 'thinkers' and 'feelers' and that the 'thinkers' are men and the f'eelers' are women and because the 'feelers' are women they are happier working in subservience to the 'thinkers.

  Bradley stated that there was 'some truth' in the WTS conclusions as stated above. He quoted a Doctor who *apparently* using the Meyer-Briggs method of statistical research concluded that you could divide the world into two camps 'thinkers' and 'feelers'.

  No only do I think that this is utter nonsense and presumes that 'feelers' cannot also be 'thinkers' or vica-versa, if indeed these strictly deliniated camps actually exist, but absolutely no evidence was presented to back up Bradley's statement save a cut-and-paste article which guess what, contained absolutely no evidence.

  This is the part of the WTS quote that Bradley agrees with :

  All women must feel that they are needed. These truths arise from the fact that, basically, women feel while men think. Women frequently measure up to men and surpass them in intelligence,

  Obviously universal experience shows that latter part of this quote to be correct, no evidence required *but* universal experience. The rest of is imho veryclose to being utter crap.

  I have never denied that woman *can* have a different emotional foundation to men in *certain* instances, but to intepret this as the WTS does, and suggest that this falls into God's pattern of creation in subservience to men is imho utter nonesense and needs to be substantially proved before it can be taken seriously.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  logansrun

  Good God, hillary. For the gazillionth time, I do not believe the world is divided into two camps of total thinkers (men) and total feelers (women). I highly doubt that that is what was meant by the psychologist I quoted earlier. The 50/50 statistic, viewed contextually, does not indicate that all people are one way or the other; it simply means that half the population, generally, are more feeling in their temperment, and the other half more thinkinking. The statistic, by the way, is probably the published results of tens of thousands of personality tests conducted over the years, not a wild statement made by some loose cannon.

  It seems obvious to me that evolution would affect the emotional makeup of animals and human animals. The "nature versus nurture" debate has been settled, by the way: we are the products of both. Now, what percentage of Who We Are is genetics and what percentage behavioral stimlus and reward is up for grabs. The ultra-politically correct would like to say that nature accounts for very little, thus validating a free and equal society for all (as if predispositions would necessitate otherwise). Stephen Pinker's book, "The Blank Slate" takes on some of these assumptions quite nicely and shows that our evolutionary heritage has far greater implications than people are willing to admit.

  Me man, me go eat now.

  Bradley
• 

  hillary_step

  Bradley,

  What *exactly* do you agree with in the original paragraph I quoted form the WTS and that you say has a kernel of truth in it?

  You have made it clear from the start that you do not accept that the world is divided into camps of 'feelers' and 'thinkers', yet you chose to use as evidence that there is a 'grain of truth' in the WTS quote, a statement from a man who clearly does believe, as the WTS that the world falls into these defined camps.

  What exactly *are* you saying?

  HS
• 

  Euphemism

  Hillary... you are taking the quote out of context.

  In Myers-Briggs typology, there are eight attributes, in four pairs: introversion/extroversion, intuition/sensing, feeling/thinking, perceiving/judging.

  Calling someone a thinker or an introvert or a perceiver does not mean that are only that. It means that they tend to favor that attribute over its pair.

  That is a standard definition that you will find in ANY textbook or popular book based on Myers-Briggs.

  So, when the author Bradley quoted said that roughly half of all people are thinkers and half are feelers, he was saying half tend to favor thinking over feeling, and half tend to favor feeling over thinking.

  And I challenge you to find anyone who actually knows the Myers-Briggs system who would understand the author's remarks any other way.
• 

  hillary_step

  Euphemism,

  Half of all people are thinking and half are feeling.

  This is the quote. I have already pronounced on the flaws of using Myers-Briggs outside of defined boundaries. This flaw in Myers-Briggs is not new to its critics. The statement above is nonsensical even if attributed to a mix of genders.

  This is the statement that Bradley used to quantify his thinking both on the WTS quote and the Myer-Briggs fiasco he quoted as 'evidence'.

  Nonetheless, I still say there is *some* truth (no I was not kidding) to the notion that, generally speaking, women tend to be a bit more emotionally minded then men.

  What I want to know is what he means by 'emotionally minded' and how this impacts on the correctness or otherwise of the WTS quote that opened the thread. My own position from the outset is quite clear. I accept that the emotions of many men and many women may often be different in nature, but not mutually exclusive.

  The majority of men are thinkers and the majority of women are feelers.

  This is another part of the alleged results from the Myers-Briggs quoted by Bradley. It is not possible to take this out of context Euphemism, the statement is quite clear, but it is very possible to disagree with these findings. Meyers-Briggs as you know has many critics, I am one of them. The WTS it seems is not.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  DaCheech

  My name should be "Wannaexit" but for now I'm in the Borg as an MS

  The bro who did my wedding talk, said in the talk to always listen & make the wife happy! Even if she insists that the toilet paper face out instead of in

  The WT is not inspired, just takes words from authorities that agree with their viewpoint!!!!
• 

  Euphemism

  Hillary, I understand that you're a critic of Myers-Briggs. That is fine. But it does not entitle you to claim that Myers-Briggs terminology means something other than its Myers-Briggs definition.

  An analogy might serve. I don't believe in traditional Chinese medical theory. But if I were to quote a statement by an acupuncturist about energy, I would have to accept that he is referring to the concept as understood in Chinese medicine (otherwise known as chi or qi), not as understood in physics or in general conversation.

  You owe the same courtesy to Bradley and Dr. Boeree.
• 

  hillary_step

  Euphemism,

  Hillary, I understand that you're a critic of Myers-Briggs. That is fine. But it does not entitle you to claim that Myers-Briggs terminology means something other than its Myers-Briggs definition.

  Without getting argumentative, I criticized not Myer-Briggs terminology nor its meaning, but I did criticize Dr. Boeree's and Bradleys views of such! I feeely admitted the use of Myers-Briggs in defined tests, but in undefined tests the methodology is suspect. I would be pleased if you might show where I have claimed what you suggest above.

  So, when the author Bradley quoted said that roughly half of all people are thinkers and half are feelers, he was saying half tend to favor thinking over feeling, and half tend to favor feeling over thinking

  What you seem to have missed Euphemism is the following statements :

  Myself : The statement above is nonsensical even if attributed to a mix of genders.

  And the statement from Bradlye, still yet to be explained

  Nonetheless, I still say there is *some* truth (no I was not kidding) to the notion that, generally speaking, women tend to be a bit more emotionally minded then men.

  Do you agree with this statement? Does Meyer-Briggs, whose findings were used by Bradley to defend this notion? This is the point at issue.

  Best regards - HS