MBTI and race/culture/nationality - Male Feelers

[muir]

I also have pretty quick reflexes for things like games and non-stressful situations. On the other hand I somehow seem to shut down when I am faced with a crisis situation such as a fire. I accidentally set fire to a room once and I was lucky enough to have others with me there because my brain just shut off and when they were asking questions like 'where is your fire-extinguisher? or where is the nearest source of water? or how about a blanket?' I couldn't even answer, even though I knew all those things. My very extroverted husband though is an ace in a crisis. He can think very quickly. Maybe that's what they mean.

My husband says that I am 'weak' because of my slow response time in such a situation. Once the fire is out though I'm ok and I can take over and take care of everything better than he can. There are strengths in both types of reactions. Although, I guess if I don't react and die in the emergency event then I won't have a chance to use my strengths. He does have a point there.

I think a pre-prepared game plan can help a lot

This is the purpose of training for things isn't it so that we can perform in stressful situations.

I've put someone out of fire by reacting pretty quickly but then there wasn't any other option but to use my coat so i guess that doesn't count! In your scenario you had multiple options to run through: get a blanket, fill abucket of water, go for the fire extinguisher (and then you have to remember where it is!)

Maybe this is why we like systems!

Training for people entering highly stressed situations eg firemen or soldiers seems to work by increasing the amount of chaos each time so that people can operate under increasingly chaotic situations

if we have a game plan or training to follow then things are simple: is what is happening scenario A or B? Ok its A so i need to do X

Its like the 'ABC' of CPR isn't it? These sort of mneumonics are designed to allow the computing part of the brain to follow a sequence regardless of whatever is happening and not be crowded out by the chaos

Dangerous situations do weird things to the perceptions. Time can change and things can become tunnel visioned and take on an unreal quality. This is why people have to train to be able to maintain all round awareness and function...but i think most types would need that

Here's a question: if you had been the only person in the room, do you think you would have acted quicker?

 

[La Sagna]

I think a pre-prepared game plan can help a lot

This is the purpose of training for things isn't it so that we can perform in stressful situations.

I've put someone out of fire by reacting pretty quickly but then there wasn't any other option but to use my coat so i guess that doesn't count! In your scenario you had mutliple options to run through: get a blanket, fill abucket of water, go for the fire extinguisher (and then you have to remember where it is!)

Maybe this is why we like systems!

Training for people entering highly stressed situations eg firemen or soldiers seems to work by increasing the amount of chaos each time so that people can operate under increasingly chaotic situations

if we have a game plan or training to follow then things are simple: is what is happeing scenario A or B? Ok its A so i need to do X

Its like CPR isn't it? These sort of mneumonics are designed to allow the computing part of the brain to follow a sequence regardless of whatever is happening

Dangerous situations do weird things to the perceptions. Time can change and things can become tunnel visioned and take on an unreal quality. This is why people have to train to be able to maintain all round awareness and function...but i think most types would need that

Here's a question: if you had been the only person in the room, do you think you would have acted quicker?

I hope I would have reacted quicker but I'm really not sure that I would have. It was like system overload. I'm sure I would have snapped out of it and acted but a few seconds can change everything in that situation. I guess if I already had a bucket of water in my hand or a blanket I probably would have automatically reacted but it was trying to find the information in my head to answer these questions that didn't seem to be working. I guess that goes with the idea that introverts take longer to process information. I think we come up with better solutions when we do process the info but that doesn't help too much in a crisis.

 

[muir]

I hope I would have reacted quicker but I'm really not sure that I would have. It was like system overload. I'm sure I would have snapped out of it and acted but a few seconds can change everything in that situation. I guess if I already had a bucket of water in my hand or a blanket I probably would have automatically reacted but it was trying to find the information in my head to answer these questions that didn't seem to be working. I guess that goes with the idea that introverts take longer to process information. I think we come up with better solutions when we do process the info but that doesn't help too much in a crisis.

I think other people can sometimes act as scramblers of thought processes

For example I'm convinced that nature designed the crying of babies to be the most mind scrambling noise possible so that we just have to respond (i'd respond anyway of course!)

I think the energetic buzz created by others in these scenarios can mess with intuition which is sensitive to many things around us on conscious and on unconscious levels...like radio interference. If the intuitive person can take initiative however then they will prevail and that often requires strategies

 

[barbad0s]

[MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION] Thank you for sharing the study. I guess by "biologically based" I was under the impression that you might've also meant genetically linked (though I guess if it is tied to biology then that's just corollary?)

 

[LucyJr]

Very interesting!

The only bit i'm unsure about is the response time bit...generally yes extroverts will leave me for dead in conversations...but in terms of movement if i'm initiating my movement i think i'm as quick as any extrovert (modesty aside i'd say i'm quicker)...fast reflexes....i excelled at reflex games when i was younger eg table tennis or slappies or whatever and i'll often catch objects knocked off a table.

I don't think that extroverts are faster. Or perhaps they are, but only to the surface. When you put them do go deep, they are lost, and usually to a higher degree of "lost-ness" then an introvert at the surface.

 

[La Sagna]

I think other people can sometimes act as scramblers of thought processes

For example I'm convinced that nature designed the crying of babies to be the most mind scrambling noise possible so that we just have to respond (i'd respond anyway of course!)

I think the energetic buzz created by others in these scenarios can mess with intuition which is sensitive to many things around us on conscious and on unconscious levels...like radio interference. If the intuitive person can take initiative however then they will prevail and that often requires strategies

I agree, maybe it's more of an Ni dominant vs Se dominant difference, rather than strictly introvert vs extrovert. My husband is an ESTP and he is incredibly observant of physical things and has very quick reactions in crisis situations, however he can't understand any abstract concepts or make things happen that take longer to do.

 

[muir]

I agree, maybe it's more of an Ni dominant vs Se dominant difference, rather than strictly introvert vs extrovert. My husband is an ESTP and he is incredibly observant of physical things and has very quick reactions in crisis situations, however he can't understand any abstract concepts or make things happen that take longer to do.

Ok so intuitives maybe benefit from an environment where they can mull things over?

Do you think our pop culture elevates any behaviours above others? For example what do you think about the idea of an 'extrovert ideal' being pushed on society:

http://sites.psu.edu/katherinewarringtonrcl/2013/09/12/the-extrovert-ideal/

 

[La Sagna]

[MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION] Thank you for sharing the study. I guess by "biologically based" I was under the impression that you might've also meant genetically linked (though I guess if it is tied to biology then that's just corollary?)

I kind of meant both. I think there is a consensus amongst most biologists and psychologists that personality is shaped through both Nature and Nurture. We just don't know how much of each shapes the whole.

Here's something about Twin Studies on personality:


Researchers studied sets of twins to learn whether genetics or upbringing has a greater effect on how successful people are in life

Genes play a greater role in determining key personality traits like social skills and learning ability than the way we are brought up by our parents, researchers claimed.

The findings contradict the existing belief among psychologists that the environment we grow up in plays a larger role than genetics in shaping our personality.

Researchers from Edinburgh University studied more than 800 sets of identical and non-identical twins to learn whether genetics or upbringing has a greater effect on how successful people are in life.

Twins are useful in such studies because almost all twins share the same home environment as each other, but only identical twins share exactly the same genetics.

Participants were asked a series of questions about how they perceive themselves and others, such as "are you influenced by people with strong opinions?"
Related Articles

By applying their answers to a well-established scale of psychological scale, researchers could assess and categorise different personality traits for each person.

Writing in the Journal of Personality, the researchers found that identical twins were twice as likely as non-identical twins to share the same personality traits, suggesting that their DNA was having the greatest impact.

Genetics were most influential on people's sense of self-control and also affected their social and learning abilities and their sense of purpose.

Prof Timothy Bates, who led the study, said: "Previously, the role of family and the environment around the home often dominated people's ideas about what affected psychological wellbeing. However, this work highlights a much more powerful influence from genetics."

The study was focused on personality traits which contribute to our chances of success in life by dictating whether, for example, how determined we are to overcome challenges.

Prof Bates said: "If you think of things that people are born with you think of social status or virtuoso talent, but this is looking at what we do with what we've got.

"The biggest factor we found was self control. There was a big genetic difference in [people's ability to] restrain themselves and persist with things when they got difficult and react to challenges in a positive way."


My two kids had such different personalities from the moment they were born that I have no doubt they were born with some innate personality traits. I am also certain that their personal life experiences have also molded their personalities to a certain extent.

 

[muir]

I kind of meant both. I think there is a consensus amongst most biologists and psychologists that personality is shaped through both Nature and Nurture. We just don't know how much of each shapes the whole.

Here's something about Twin Studies on personality:


Researchers studied sets of twins to learn whether genetics or upbringing has a greater effect on how successful people are in life

Genes play a greater role in determining key personality traits like social skills and learning ability than the way we are brought up by our parents, researchers claimed.

The findings contradict the existing belief among psychologists that the environment we grow up in plays a larger role than genetics in shaping our personality.

Researchers from Edinburgh University studied more than 800 sets of identical and non-identical twins to learn whether genetics or upbringing has a greater effect on how successful people are in life.

Twins are useful in such studies because almost all twins share the same home environment as each other, but only identical twins share exactly the same genetics.

Participants were asked a series of questions about how they perceive themselves and others, such as "are you influenced by people with strong opinions?"
Related Articles

By applying their answers to a well-established scale of psychological scale, researchers could assess and categorise different personality traits for each person.

Writing in the Journal of Personality, the researchers found that identical twins were twice as likely as non-identical twins to share the same personality traits, suggesting that their DNA was having the greatest impact.

Genetics were most influential on people's sense of self-control and also affected their social and learning abilities and their sense of purpose.

Prof Timothy Bates, who led the study, said: "Previously, the role of family and the environment around the home often dominated people's ideas about what affected psychological wellbeing. However, this work highlights a much more powerful influence from genetics."

The study was focused on personality traits which contribute to our chances of success in life by dictating whether, for example, how determined we are to overcome challenges.

Prof Bates said: "If you think of things that people are born with you think of social status or virtuoso talent, but this is looking at what we do with what we've got.

"The biggest factor we found was self control. There was a big genetic difference in [people's ability to] restrain themselves and persist with things when they got difficult and react to challenges in a positive way."


My two kids had such different personalities from the moment they were born that I have no doubt they were born with some innate personality traits. I am also certain that their personal life experiences have also molded their personalities to a certain extent.

Obviously nature and nurture both play a part

But if you lock one twin in a solitary confinement cell for 20 years with no books or forms of knowledge input and you send the other twin to the best educational establishment in the land then when you give the two an academic test the one that went to the best educational establishment in the land will score higher

So the study doesn't do away with the need of society to improve the environment for as many people as possible if it wants to get the best from people

The danger with these genetics arguments is that the upper class will claim genetic superiority and use that as a justification for how they then structure society

having lived in edinburgh for many years i can tell you that the university that made that study is very much an elitist establishment

 

[La Sagna]

It's funny. I don't see these studies as proving any superiority per se. I never thought of them being used that way, but then again I'm an egalitarian.

There is not doubt that nurture also plays a big part but I think it's the exact combination of genetics and environment, both physical and emotional, that creates one's personality. I think personally that the specific combination between a parent's personality and a child's personality makes a big difference in how one's character is shaped. Certain combinations work better than others.

It's like people who develop schizophrenia, from identical twin studies they know there is a high genetic link but they also know there is an environmental component because the link is not 100%. They believe that some of the components that will determine if someone who has the genetic predisposition for schizophrenia will develop it is exposure to a virus both before birth and after, as well as complications during childbirth, childhood stress and teenage drug use. Schizophrenia used to be blamed on a mother's parenting style so that goes to show how the nurture only theory can cause harm.

 

[muir]

It's funny. I don't see these studies as proving any superiority per se. I never thought of them being used that way, but then again I'm an egalitarian.

There is not doubt that nurture also plays a big part but I think it's the exact combination of genetics and environment, both physical and emotional, that creates one's personality. I think personally that the specific combination between a parent's personality and a child's personality makes a big difference in how one's character is shaped. Certain combinations work better than others.

It's like people who develop schizophrenia, from identical twin studies they know there is a high genetic link but they also know there is an environmental component because the link is not 100%. They believe that some of the components that will determine if someone who has the genetic predisposition for schizophrenia will develop it is exposure to a virus both before birth and after, as well as complications during childbirth, childhood stress and teenage drug use. Schizophrenia used to be blamed on a mother's parenting style so that goes to show how the nurture only theory can cause harm.

If you ever hear anyone having a debate about economics, for example they could be talking about keynes v's hayek or whatever if you keep going long enough the debate will always go back to the source which is the nature v's nurture debate!

It really is at the heart of all the arguments about how we should structure our society

There are people like yourself and me who are egalitarian by nature and on the other there are people who want a completely unequal society

So many of the discussions had on this forum can really be traced back to that when scratched beneath the surface....it is the fundamental yin and yang of economics, politics, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, science eg eugenics and even religion ties into it and many more besides

Another manifestation of this fundamental dynamic struggle is the centralisation v's decentralisation issue with egalitarians favouring decentralisation and fascists/state socialists (ie totalitarian types) favouring centralisation

This fundamental struggle can tie into various dualities eg thinking v's feeling, left brain v's right etc

The truth is a balance needs to be struck and no harmony is going to come for our species until there is a widespread understanding of that

So yeah....just as in any of these big debates eg climate change, ideologies etc each side of this divide will present their 'studies' or their 'experts' to try to validate their arguments

Political elements that want to make changes for example make tax cuts for the rich will obviously be on the side of those believing in inequality....they will then want an ideology that suits that mindset so they wil support fascism or state socialism and they will adopt an economic theory that will manifest that world eg neoliberalism and they will argue that their unequal society is actually just a reflection of human biology and their genetic superiority and they may even bring in a religious element and say that god intends society to take that shape, hence the battle between chomksy and the behaviouralists

This is really what it is all about

Everything going on around us in the world is really all tied into this.....our lives are the battle ground of this fundamental dynamic

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I have been reading about most Feelers being women and the idea that male Feelers seem to be seen as having more feminine traits. This left me really wondering because all the males in my family are Feelers and I believe that many of the males in my extended family are also Feelers. This has meant that I have not really identified the F characteristics as being necessarily feminine.

I think that this has something to do with my background. I am French from Québec but I have been living in English Canada for a long time and I strongly believe that there is a much higher percentage of male Feelers in French Canada than there is in English Canada. I'm not sure there is much of a difference in the percentage of women Feelers or at least it is not as noticeable.

I've never been much interested in dividing people between race or cultural lines but I thought this observation was very interesting. For me, there is a distinct different 'feel' when I am in Québec than when I am in English Canada, and I think this might be partly why. I am quite certain that there are more Feelers than average in Québec.

My dad is an ESFJ and my mom was an ESFP and I have a feeling that there are probably a lot of both of those types in Québec.

What you note is true. Work takes me to Canada occasionally. I have always had a strong impression that in Canada there is a lot of gender role-reversal (in comparison to Western stereotypes).

Perhaps two generations of militant feminism in Canada has had an influence on how male and female children have been conditioned?

 

[La Sagna]

What you note is true. Work takes me to Canada occasionally. I have always had a strong impression that in Canada there is a lot of gender role-reversal (in comparison to Western stereotypes).

Perhaps two generations of militant feminism in Canada has had an influence on how male and female children have been conditioned?

I'm not sure that there is more 'militant feminism' in Canada than in other Western countries. As a general rule we tend to be less 'militant' than most. If you mean that we have made great strides in women being educated at the same level as men then that is true and that is a very good thing. If you mean that women get equal pay or equal opportunity for career advancement, unfortunately that is still definitely not the case. That is often because women still overwhelmingly have the main responsibility for child rearing in the family. I will not pass judgement on whether this is good or bad, because I think that can only be judged on an individual basis.

I'm not so sure about the role reversal thing either, my dad may be a strong feeler but he's the one who worked and supported the family while my mom stayed home to raise the kids and take care of the household. Both my brothers are the main breadwinners in their family, but also the main caregivers when they are with their families. In their cases I think this is more a reflection of their wives' personalities as well as their own.
My take on male feelers isn't so much about the role they take, but about the impression that I have that they are more willing to let their feelings guide them and to be shown as being emotional human beings. I don't believe this to be a role reversal as much as individual human nature and the difference may be in society's acceptance of men showing their emotions. People in Québec are definitely more open and less judgmental towards emotional men. (They may be less open and more judgmental about some other things but that's a whole other topic)

 

[La Sagna]

Ok so intuitives maybe benefit from an environment where they can mull things over?

Do you think our pop culture elevates any behaviours above others? For example what do you think about the idea of an 'extrovert ideal' being pushed on society:

http://sites.psu.edu/katherinewarringtonrcl/2013/09/12/the-extrovert-ideal/

I agree that extroversion gets glorified in the media and in the entertainment industry, but I think that is mostly guided by American culture. It is also because they are louder and like to glorify themselves (I mean extroverts, but Americans too I guess). I think introverted people have just as much influence but they do it under the radar. I think extroverts and what they accomplish are more highlighted because they are more entertaining (in an extroverted sort of way). Since there seems to be more extroverts in North America and extroverts are entertained more by loud and flashy things then that will be given priority. In my experience what entertains an introvert tends to really bore extroverts. So in a way extroverts rule the World of entertainment and to some extent business and media but those are just the more visible forms of power. I believe that introverts excerpt a great deal of influence on academia which can also be very powerful. Introverts also have great influence on the publishing industry.

Perhaps extroverts are more impulsive buyers and bigger supporters of the movie and music industry so they will be deemed more important in a society where finding a way to make the most money possible is the top priority. Really, wouldn't it be considered good business to market more to the people who buy more?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I'm not sure that there is more 'militant feminism' in Canada than in other Western countries. As a general rule we tend to be less 'militant' than most. If you mean that we have made great strides in women being educated at the same level as men then that is true and that is a very good thing. If you mean that women get equal pay or equal opportunity for career advancement, unfortunately that is still definitely not the case. That is often because women still overwhelmingly have the main responsibility for child rearing in the family. I will not pass judgement on whether this is good or bad, because I think that can only be judged on an individual basis.

I'm not so sure about the role reversal thing either, my dad may be a strong feeler but he's the one who worked and supported the family while my mom stayed home to raise the kids and take care of the household. Both my brothers are the main breadwinners in their family, but also the main caregivers when they are with their families. In their cases I think this is more a reflection of their wives' personalities as well as their own.
My take on male feelers isn't so much about the role they take, but about the impression that I have that they are more willing to let their feelings guide them and to be shown as being emotional human beings. I don't believe this to be a role reversal as much as individual human nature and the difference may be in society's acceptance of men showing their emotions. People in Québec are definitely more open and less judgmental towards emotional men. (They may be less open and more judgmental about some other things but that's a whole other topic)

I thought we were talking about feminine traits. Those roles, not employment, etc.

 

[muir]

I agree that extroversion gets glorified in the media and in the entertainment industry, but I think that is mostly guided by American culture.

yeah but 'american culture' is not something that people get from drinking the water there. It is an engineered, man made, thing; when things get really interesting is when people try to pull back the curtain and see who the people are behind it all and what their motivation is

It is also because they are louder and like to glorify themselves (I mean extroverts, but Americans too I guess). I think introverted people have just as much influence but they do it under the radar. I think extroverts and what they accomplish are more highlighted because they are more entertaining (in an extroverted sort of way). Since there seems to be more extroverts in North America and extroverts are entertained more by loud and flashy things then that will be given priority. In my experience what entertains an introvert tends to really bore extroverts. So in a way extroverts rule the World of entertainment and to some extent business and media but those are just the more visible forms of power. I believe that introverts excerpt a great deal of influence on academia which can also be very powerful. Introverts also have great influence on the publishing industry.

I have no doubt about the influence of introverts...they are instrumental....but the introverts at the top of society who mix among the engineers of pop culture will not need to face the challenges the introverts in the rest of society will have to face. So if the cultural engineers create a culture that is discriminatory towards introverts it will not affect them even if they themselves are introverts

So the question is ''why discriminate against introverts?''

I would suggest this is because they feel threatened by introverts as the most likely threat to their priveleged position in society (revolutionary leaders are invariably introverts)

If you make a world where less insightful people think they are smart/cool/superior and think that insightful people are uncool/dumb/inferior then they will not pay any attention to what the insightful people say because they think THEY are the successful/cool/smart ones; instead they will label them 'crazy', 'weird', 'uncool' or whatever to basically silence them, suppress them and police them

meanwhile the engineers of culture will be stealing the world from under everyones feet

Its diabolically clever but its as plain as day to me though

An added bonus for the engineers of culture is that by pushing the 'extrovert ideal' they can also push consumerism which not only fills their corporate coffers with lots of money but also feeds the image obsessed feedback loop as only those that are fashionable enough will be taken seriously; which is of course absurd because a person who spends their time with their nose buried in fashion magazines is going to know less about how the world works then an introvert who is feeding themsleves a broad diet of information

Please see the following clip which illustrates the rise in the idiot culture where being 'hip' and dressing the right way is elevated above the ability to exercise critical thinking. this is a part of the dumbing down of society and it is working very well

[video=youtube;o_5uVdy5YmA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_5uVdy5YmA[/video]

Perhaps extroverts are more impulsive buyers and bigger supporters of the movie and music industry so they will be deemed more important in a society where finding a way to make the most money possible is the top priority. Really, wouldn't it be considered good business to market more to the people who buy more?

They want to market to everyone. thats why they created the 'VALS' system

They wanted to start commodyfiying the activities of inner directed people

The herd then flocked into the activities that inner directed people were doing

They will hijack anything like that. its not so much about making money (they already have all the wealth) it is more about castrating any potent cultural movement that might threaten the status quo

Below i will show two photos of two high profile people in the US

The first one is a famous rapper with a fashion clothes line who is a snappy dresser and hangs with the president. He is seen as 'cool' and people spend literally hundreds of dollars for a ticket to see this shill perform:

Jay Z & Beyonze

The second photo is of a geeky looking journalist, wearing glasses and a scruffy coat who says he has no TV and reads tons of books. He has endangered his own career to challenge the governments fascistic NDAA law in court and he risked his life when he worked as a war correspondant helping to show the west the horrors that were being carried out in the balkans (which the US played a part in)

Chris Hedges

Which one is the true hero?

Which one do the kids aspire to be?

Which one does the corporate media give air time to?

 

[La Sagna]

yeah but 'american culture' is not something that people get from drinking the water there. It is an engineered, man made, thing; when things get really interesting is when people try to pull back the curtain and see who the people are behind it all and what their motivation is



I have no doubt about the influence of introverts...they are instrumental....but the introverts at the top of society who mix among the engineers of pop culture will not need to face the challenges the introverts in the rest of society will have to face. So if the cultural engineers create a culture that is discriminatory towards introverts it will not affect them even if they themselves are introverts

So the question is ''why discriminate against introverts?''

I would suggest this is because they feel threatened by introverts as the most likely threat to their priveleged position in society (revolutionary leaders are invariably introverts)

If you make a world where less insightful people think they are smart/cool/superior and think that insightful people are uncool/dumb/inferior then they will not pay any attention to what the insightful people say because they think THEY are the successful/cool/smart ones; instead they will label them 'crazy', 'weird', 'uncool' or whatever to basically silence them, suppress them and police them

meanwhile the engineers of culture will be stealing the world from under everyones feet

Its diabolically clever but its as plain as day to me though

An added bonus for the engineers of culture is that by pushing the 'extrovert ideal' they can also push consumerism which not only fills their corporate coffers with lots of money but also feeds the image obsessed feedback loop as only those that are fashionable enough will be taken seriously; which is of course absurd because a person who spends their time with their nose buried in fashion magazines is going to know less about how the world works then an introvert who is feeding themsleves a broad diet of information

Please see the following clip which illustrates the rise in the idiot culture where being 'hip' and dressing the right way is elevated above the ability to exercise critical thinking. this is a part of the dumbing down of society and it is working very well

[video=youtube;o_5uVdy5YmA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_5uVdy5YmA[/video]



They want to market to everyone. thats why they created the 'VALS' system

They wanted to start commodyfiying the activities of inner directed people

The herd then flocked into the activities that inner directed people were doing

They will hijack anything like that. its not so much about making money (they already have all the wealth) it is more about castrating any potent cultural movement that might threaten the status quo

Below i will show two photos of two high profile people in the US

The first one is a famous rapper with a fashion clothes line who is a snappy dresser and hangs with the president. He is seen as 'cool' and people spend literally hundreds of dollars for a ticket to see this shill perform:

View attachment 19296 Jay Z & Beyonze

The second photo is of a geeky looking journalist, wearing glasses and a scruffy coat who says he has no TV and reads tons of books. He has endangered his own career to challenge the governments fascistic NDAA law in court and he risked his life when he worked as a war correspondant helping to show the west the horrors that were being carried out in the balkans (which the US played a part in)

View attachment 19297 Chris Hedges

Which one is the true hero?

Which one do the kids aspire to be?

Which one does the corporate media give air time to?

That's a pretty funny video. I guess I don't fall into the Idiot category because to me if everybody wants something then I don't want it. Also, I am inherently suspicious of any fads such as certain diets, etc...

I agree that most kids idolize people like Jay-Z more that somebody like Chris Hedges but I think it has more to do with what looks fun and exciting to them. I think you are probably right in your opinion that there are people trying to control how we view ourselves and who they believe should be our idols, but I think the main reason that it is so successful is that most people are quite shallow and gravitate towards meaningless 'shiny' things that get them all excited.

I think the average extroverts discriminates against introverts simply because they don't understand them and they think they are superior. Society, culture and many people in power do try to discredit anybody who questions the status quo and doesn't go along with the masses but I don't think it's specific to introverts, although probably more introverts will have the tendency to question things.

I do think it is still mostly about money though, money and power. Some people will never feel like they have enough of either of these things.

So, I think your ideas about certain groups trying to control others is right but I think it still comes down to human nature and that many people just naturally want to follow the crowd and do what the 'cool kids' are doing.

 

[muir]

That's a pretty funny video. I guess I don't fall into the Idiot category because to me if everybody wants something then I don't want it. Also, I am inherently suspicious of any fads such as certain diets, etc...

It made me laugh!

I agree that most kids idolize people like Jay-Z more that somebody like Chris Hedges but I think it has more to do with what looks fun and exciting to them.

we have learned from the whole 'reality tv' thing that people can make someone look hwoever they like if they can edit them and their life

The cultural engineers are editing everything. They control the TV channels and radio channel and film studios. They make some things seem cool and other things not

I think you are probably right in your opinion that there are people trying to control how we view ourselves and who they believe should be our idols, but I think the main reason that it is so successful is that most people are quite shallow and gravitate towards meaningless 'shiny' things that get them all excited.

They want us fixated on idols...they have been doing this to us for thousands of years!

I think mckenna saud it well when he said we give our power away to these idols:

[video=youtube;-eu9GfHCpVo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eu9GfHCpVo[/video]

I think the average extroverts discriminates against introverts simply because they don't understand them and they think they are superior. Society, culture and many people in power do try to discredit anybody who questions the status quo and doesn't go along with the masses but I don't think it's specific to introverts, although probably more introverts will have the tendency to question things.

So it would take a foolish elite not to take personality types into account when they are strategising

If you are interested there is a great documentary by a BBC journalist called Adam Curtis about the history of psychology. Its a real eye opener because it shows how engineered our society is. This guy has worked in the BBC for many years, really knows his stuff and has used the photographic and film archives of the BBC to put together a number of documentaries that are loaded with good info; its called 'the century of the self'. If you have time its well worth a watch:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/

I do think it is still mostly about money though, money and power. Some people will never feel like they have enough of either of these things.

Money is power that is what it is

They want power. money is just the means to that

So, I think your ideas about certain groups trying to control others is right but I think it still comes down to human nature and that many people just naturally want to follow the crowd and do what the 'cool kids' are doing.

is it human nature or does psycopathy play a part?

 

[La Sagna]

is it human nature or does psycopathy play a part?

I don't doubt that many people in positions of power have little empathy and enjoy the game of manipulation which are the hallmarks of psychopathy, but the human nature I was speaking of is that of the ordinary people who's issues are probably more related to low self-esteem and a need to belong. I think we are all motivated by a need to fill the void we feel inside of us and we find different ways to try to fill it, usually not very healthy ones.

Thanks for the link to the documentary. I will watch it when I have a chance. It looks interesting.

 

[muir]

I don't doubt that many people in positions of power have little empathy and enjoy the game of manipulation which are the hallmarks of psychopathy, but the human nature I was speaking of is that of the ordinary people who's issues are probably more related to low self-esteem and a need to belong. I think we are all motivated by a need to fill the void we feel inside of us and we find different ways to try to fill it, usually not very healthy ones.

Thanks for the link to the documentary. I will watch it when I have a chance. It looks interesting.

The docuemntary talks about the biggest psychological screenings ever conducted

This info was collated and processed by computer and the findings used to inform their actions

They have been analysing us like lab rats

This understanding of and use of psychology by elites is ancient. Astrology is largely about it, and the 4 temperaments and so on

In looking at behavioural patterns Jung is really just acting as part of a long tradition

The egyptian priesthood studied people and the stars and made predictions that gave them a god like appearance to the common farmers...and that is what all this is about: playing god