I was trying to expound on Austrian Economics on another message forum (for INTJs, one of the Jungian personality types) and the thread ended up dying because I was being accused of being insufficiently accepting of other viewpoints and being rude in the process. I disagree but would love it if some other Austrians would review the thread and see where I went wrong. Do I need to tone things down when I talk about this stuff? Was I out of line or are my opponents just pussies?
This will take some time so I appreciate anyone who reads through it. Thanks :)
http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?t=13300
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
Sphairon:Same here. I figured this must be common among Austro-libertarians, considering the way this school of thought approaches the world.
INTP here, and I've noticed the same thing. Libertarians tend to be Rationals of one sort or another.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Very interesting. On a random note, what is the deal with Lucid's pic. Weird.
I only made it through a page and a half. It's obvious to me that allowing the system to work that created the level of wealth allowing the poor to stuff their faces while enjoying luxuries that were inconceivable to the richest men a hundred years ago is outside the realm of reason, and if you continue to make that suggestion you must be a thousand kinds of ignorant. We can all be rich by simply giving everyone more than they are able to produce. Also, there is an authority who disagrees with you so you must be wrong, and if you think this is an appeal to authority you must be ignorant about that too. You're clearly wrong because you're not supporting your argument, and others don't need to support their arguments because you're clearly wrong. The bottom line is, the only possible reason for not supporting a scheme to help the poor is not caring about the poor, you capitalist pig.
The second somebody I was arguing with was allowed to edit my posts for reasons other than a ToS violation, I would end my participation in that discussion, perhaps the forum altogether.
I did see some intelligent discussion going on, some I agreed with and some I didn't but at least they were supporting their views rather than subjecting you to an endless barrage of ad hominems. If what I've read is indicative of the rest of the discussion, you were calm and rational in response to posts that were anything but.
Edit: I'm an ENTP. Any others around here?
I just read the whole thing. Twice. The first time I read it I thought: Excellent, well done! The second time I thought: Excellent, well done! But…
Here’s something I’ve noticed about debating someone who holds different views:
-You gain points for making a valid argument. People respect an intelligent statement.
- You lose points when you are the only one making valid arguments. People start to get frustrated and reject intelligent statements when you are correct too many times.
-Your “tone” can stay the same throughout the discussion, but others will see that you are “winning” and will start to view you as being more aggressive.
Maybe this has to do with some sort of underdog bias in our society? I don’t know…
I think anybody who looked at this thread with a TRULY open mind would, at the very least, appreciate what you had to say. Now we just need to figure out how to get people to open their minds before the debate starts…
I took the time to read the thread and I think you did a splendid job defending your views. You were curtious and sincere (and absolutely right ;)).
My advice is to only post in that forum if you hope to convince those who might read the thread. Convincing your opponents, such as "Lucid" will be impossible. It's obvious that this person has no interest in a real discussion, let it go!
INFP <Healer> here.
Me too.
ISFJ
Semper Fidelis
For those who don't know what an INTJ is...
http://www.typetango.com/
Fictional INTJs:
maybe this will be humorous...
On the forum to which maxpot46 is referring, Lucid called maxpot46 preachy. Yeah, I know... alert the media, and start the impeachment of Obama!
Anyway, I thought it was rich that an INTJ on an INTJ forum called another INTJ 'preachy'.
<------Also an INTJ type.
sirmonty: <------Also an INTJ type.
Man, what's with all the INTJ's? We need more Es.
ENTJ- if I wasn't a libertarian I'd be a dictator in waiting.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
ENFP; no impressive list of famous libertarians, but i guess the individualistic and anti-bureaucratic tendencies do the deal -;))
Hmm, now that i think about it: it might explain my annoyment at (any type, Randian or not) of objectivism -;))
maxpot46: They are personality types (16 in all) based on the works of Carl Jung as refined by Elizabeth Myers-Briggs. The MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) is a popular system and one that I personally think is very accurate (though opinions are mixed on this).
They are personality types (16 in all) based on the works of Carl Jung as refined by Elizabeth Myers-Briggs. The MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) is a popular system and one that I personally think is very accurate (though opinions are mixed on this).
I am one who thinks it is pretty much crap. My guess is men almost always classify themselves as T's and women as F's. I would also guess most people classify themselves as E's, since extraverts are looked upon favorably in society. I don't remember the specifics about the other two categories, but I know one of them has to do with whether you see the big picture or not, and my guess is that most people classify themselves as big picture people.
However, it has been my experience that almost everyone is actually an I, and that E's are extremely annoying. It has also been my experience that just about everyone is a small picture person, but being big picture is considered smarter, so people claim they are big picture.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Max,
All apologies for being an annoying woman wanting to look smarter than she is!
Just kidding - not sure myself whether it's accurate or not -;))
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap