₦airaland Forum

You best get ready to duck

@anony I believe we are exploring that as well. I would say, as @avi put it in his first paragraph, consciously, community/society determines the moral code. We are currently in the process of building a global moral code. Well, we always are, but now that process is being accelerated because of the environment, technology breaking physical barriers. How to determine the best moral code has been touched upon as well.

General catch all, mechanically speaking, the environment dictates the moral code. Moral codes are similar to evolution via natural selector. Do you agree?

Are moral codes memetic?

@ plat, The irony that it's similar to evolution is lost on most religious.

@kay , armed conflicts always leave a bitter taste, but I agree, sometimes it may be necessary.

So ultimately we are now crafting a universal moral code? What is this based on? The environment more or else, yes? So there is no objectively best way to go about crafting a moral code, is there?

Please butcher the word transcendental anywhere you see it, thank you.

@dela, you didn't even tempt me with anything in order to do as you wish. That's standard antichrist procedure. You'll need to work harder else lucifer, saddam, some members of NL et al will win all the plaudits

Delafruita: now am actually lmao.i dont prefer tennis to football,god(the white bearded one who love to kill little kids)forbid.i prefer tennis to soccer.but i do watch soccer and i love arsenal footbal club(another reason friends think am a retard).we "heathens" will converge on flushing meadows by next week and nothing will be better than seeing my beloved andy murray(another reason am a retard) finally get his grand slam.
lest i forget,my way is superior to your way no matter how superior to me way your way is.

Where to begin... Your ways are so egregious from now on I will terrify followers of my religion with tales featuring you as our antichrist...

Mr_Anony: I did not specify a judeo-christian deity or any deity at all. Basically, what ask is If you met a being who is all-powerful and all-knowing and created everything that exists including you, will you submit to such a being?

Edit: I have just seen your edited answer, thanks for answering.

Note though, again it's impossible to be omni-etc, but in the case of a very powerful/knowledgeable deity that may think itself or indeed be involved in creating this universe. Accepting its existence? If it showed up sure why not. Submitting to its will? It has a lOooooooooooot of explaining to do, so most likely no.

Mr_Anony: I'm just taking a poll: All you have to do is answer yes or no. You don't have to explain your answer.

THE QUESTION: Assuming you came to find out that God exists and you found it to true beyond every reasonable doubt such that it is common knowledge amongst everyone, will you submit to God's rule?

Please answer honestly.

Judeo-christian god? No. Because I think it immoral.

Other gods? Depends

Edit: all powerful and all knowing? Its impossible. But even just being really powerful and knowledgeable the answer would be no. Unless it can come up with some reasonable explanations. So mythical all powerful etc, definitely no.

Avicenna: I don't think so. Interfering aggressively(invasions,wars) always leaves resentment long after the events are over.
The best way is to choose some citizens and expose them to the lifestyle(human rights, liberties,democracy,technology,science,luxury, and other benefit of a progressive society) hitherto alien to them. Then, an abrupt stop. Maybe denying of work permit or outright deportation. This people WILL not/CANNOT return fully to their regressive culture. So, a little compromise, here and there, they are on their way to freedom. It will take long but it may work better. Afterall, they are changing themselves. That's how the spartans 'lost' the war.

But the economic benefits of invading and exploiting a country is too tempting to overlook. What better guise to invade than for democràcy?

Finally, it is immoral to ignore others as they suffer simply because they suffer the misfortune of being born in a backward society. Rwanda genocide. Bosnia genocide. Jewish holocaust. Would you if you had the power(using 'interference') stop it in its early years? I know you said human rights but this can also be regarded as one. What I'm trying to say is, 'interfering' for economic benefits(usually denied by unreasonable target country in a global society), to stop egregious crimes/human right abuses in some countries is necessary tho not desirable. This may contradict my first answer but hope you get exactly what I meant. Its somehow difficult to articulate precisely the complex morality I'm following.

Its a reasonable position, which I would personally subscribe to actually. So I suppose should a culture be deemed dangerous then armed conflicts may be necessary? This does seem rather arbitrary though.

Also, does that mean there's an objectively morally superior code out there that we should, or are obligated to, follow?

Random:
For instance bush and iraq in his axis of evil. I was no expert on iraq, but even I knew of the sunni/shia sh1tstorm that was being held in check by saddam. It was also patently obvious he wouldn't have nuclear weapons (chemical maybe, nuclear, no). In essence, some would have argued that saddam was a necessary evil (*ducks*), even by western moral standards as the alternatives were arguably worse. And there are other ways they could have gone about disposing saddam anyways (and they were trying, and reasonably successful too). The US seems less interested, or overtly aggressive with korea, a viable military threat. The cost of their last campaigns in that region may be reason enough discourage involvement. So maybe there were other reasons for bush shenanigans in iraq. After his tenure blair said something to the tune of he felt he was mandated by god to involve himself in iraq (after, because british are very separate church and state). I'm not sure about bush but he's probably said similar, during his tenure even.

@dela , sometimes people write lol without actually loling, but I actually was loling. Just know that my way is unambiguously superior, always. Never question me else your arrogance will show. And how could you prefer tennis to football? Heathen

Delafruita: hitler didnt act in isolation,infact he was cheered on by his countrymen.chairman Mao was by all means a buffoon who succeeded in causing the death of millions by encouraging them to farm for steel(how stupid does that even sound) but the chinese revere him till date.kim jon il died recently and there was an outpour of emotions from his countrymen.i half expected one of the senior generals to seize power but that didnt happen because they indeed believed that kim jong il was a god and he was watching.belief systems differ from place to place and it would be wrong to attempt to infringe on the rights of people to believe in what they believe in.
however,this is the modern age and almost every nation,irrespective of their various belief systems,are members of the UN and are signatories to various treaties and charters.when they violate those charters,it becomes the duty of the UN to bring them into line.


on the contrary,frederic didnt fail.he succeeded in solidifying prussia by winning wars and signing treaties.


first,napoleon was very short for his age which is one of the reasons he wore high shoes.he was also a local corsican peasant which is why he always wanted tallyrand around him despite his hatred for the man.as for the wars been needless,thats an error.his first war was against the austrians and he roundly defeated them.they in turn sought revenge as did the prussians but unknown to them napoleon always had well paid spies who let him know of the plans of the enemies.which is why he always seemed to be on the offensive.this is not to say he didnt wage wars,he did and his ultimate goal was to create a large empire with him as emperor.he knew he couldnt achieve this without getting rid of the papacy and thus began his quest.in the context of the times,no war was needless.it was all about gaining territories

As for the first part, lol. You really don't believe in our father kim jun I'll (or whatever), heathen? From the way you describe it (and many others do as well), it sounds like the vast majority of north korea is deluded. Is it possible the vast majority of those people have been brain washed and really don't know better? What if they become dangerous to others, not just themselves. They might decide their dear father should be father to all of us.

Yes he (frederic) did in many ways, he didn't win many popularity contests though during his times. That's what we are looking at, how people react to being force fed another culture, is it ever justifiable?

Napoleon is all debatable, I disagree but ultimately its irrelevant. He was corsican of course, I'm not even sure if his french wasn't without an accent and whatnot. The complex though is a misnomer en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex . Look up references of course if wiki isn't good enough for you. Evolution, we've grown taller.

So the UN puts a wrench on things? Forces us to follow its moral code? (Edit: I hadn't considered this)

Kay 17: Probably cultural sensitivity

It seems impossible to ignore cultural sensitivity in these issues.

Basically I'd like to know if there possibly could be some sort of universal moral code.

okeyxyz: Really, this all amounts to arrogance on the parts of those who preach human rights as if it's something "divine" or bestowed upon us by some supreme entity. Don't get me wrong, I believe in human rights too but I will not assume that I have the right impose one set of values on any people and declare "this is a fight for freedom and justice". If a person has not asked to be freed from oppression, then what are you liberating him from? How come it's easy for us to ignore the fact that half the population of saudi arabia are women? If the women decide to go out enmasse to demand their rights what are the men/authorities gonna do? take out guns and shoot their wives, daughters and sisters? Has it occured to us that these women being orthodox moslems that most of them do infact believe in the fundamentals of islam?

For most parts, the real reason western cultures make a deliberate push for "human rights" into other cultures is simply for the econmomic benefits they(the west) would derive from it, no more, no less. Not that it's a bad thing though(nor do i oppose it). Just calling a spade when i see one.

So in your opinion, if you're going to be brutally honest, would you say there's never a situation where morality alone justifies subjugation?

Say slavery, for instance?

Edit: is there a situation where people in the culture deemed inferior just aren't educated enough to know they are being 'oppressed'? Thanks

Delafruita: they dont have the right to interfere especially as it does not in any way affect them.the west has a knack for poking their noses where its needed not.america has made itself the police of the world perhaps because of its economic superiority.when the british invaded afghanistan,they believed the afghans would be thrilled by the freedom they(brits)brought along.instead,the hitherto warring tribes united to kill all the british soldiers save one.people have their cultures and the arabs are proud people who view females as properties.this didnt start with islam,it was the culture long before islam.


frederic was a callous sonofabitch but also one of the greatest was strategists of all time.he definitely wasnt liberal.quite a number of kings tried the liberal approach with their subjects notably the grand-nephew of napoleon who became emperor.he dressed casually,took strolls on the streets of paris and mingled with locals.he was friends with the rothschilds and allowed them to sit and even wear a hat in his presence.at first the french were thrilled with his simplicity,with time the novelty wore off and the people wanted a king who behaved like a king.he was eventually deposed and lived out the remainder of his life in exile.
napoleon bonaparte was loved,loathed and respected.the austrians hated him but his people loved him.napoleon was a great general but not a brutal leader.the more reason why he could reclaim his throne without a single shot been fired and rule for 100days before his quest for more glory led him to waterloo



the fact that you mentioned the mongols is because their legacy remains till date.without the mongols,there wouldnt be china.

If we can, let's abstain from criticizing one culture or the other. That may be difficult of course, but let's just try to focus on global trends. I'm not making a case for a liberal or left leaning cause either. It just seems that every so often someone brings about a 'just' cause and uses that ( and various other reasons maybe) as a reason to try and justify subjugation. Usually the cause boils down to cultural, religious, moral issues. In essence, they simply don't believe they can do business with the neighbour, and go about forcing their moral code on the neighbour. Is this ever acceptable?

So basically frederic failed on various fronts because he was too callous? I got that impression as well. Genghis was a lot more callous though. So what's the diffrence between them, success? (Edit: with regards to china I would say the mongols eventually became chinese, not the other way round. China as is usual was plagued with internecine battles, leaving them vurnrable, but eventually mongol culture was assimilated. My history knowledge may be poor though)

Napoleon was loved in france, this was france after the revolution, they were the usa of the day (in a manner). He wasn't so popular in the rest of europe though. He did have supporters in other european countries, but has generally been demonized. This despite his code being considered morrally superior to the feudal systems he tried to replace (from the pov of west ie, random, napoleon wasn't short for his age, yet the napolean complex is named after him for instance, perhaps it has to do with what some view as needless wars?).

Thanks for the responses btw.

okeyxyz: @Enigma has a point.

Not really, as there's no atheist only section. I want to deal with this in the context of religion particularly, I don't want silly my religion said this arguments. The rest of the post is a rant. He should take it up with the perceived offenders.

Those shamans had really strong, probably toxic stuff (still do actually, perhaps with science they are saner now though). So ima have to go with stoned-out (or worse) stone age tent (or cave) dwellers.

Then again, there are no gods..

Double post

^^^
What he says @mr anony . It's the reason I still debate you anyways. You at least try to approach issues mathematically, in a manner of speak. Or attempt to translate to secular speak.

I'm not asking religious not to get involved, just keep scriptures and common fallacies (as far as the rest of the world that does not subscribe to your faith) is concerned. Or something like that, you get the drift.

If you're going to post a verse from some religious text or something similar, please ignore this thread.

I pose a question poorly researched by me, but I'd like to hear opinions from here eitherways.

I give you a situation like saudi arabia, where women do not have suffrage (iirc). This is considered by most in the west as a blatant human rights abuse, morally egregious. At the point where it becomes perceived by the west, or whatever culture, as a basics right abuse, do they have the right to interfere?

Bush touted moral superiority in his adventures in iraq, it hasn't increased his popularity there. My history is hazy, but I remember a prussian king (frederic maybe)trying to give his subjects basic rights, and they loathed him for that. Napoleon went about spreading his code and was demonized everywhere regardless. The same could arguably be said of alexander and his conquests as well.

I might be wrong, but I don't remember the mongols (genghis and his exploits in particular) adding anything of worth culturally, in fact they adopted more from the cultures than they gave. They happened to be extremely brutal and competent at warfare though. Despite their extreme brutality they seem to be respected by those oppressed. Is this your view as well? Why do you think it was so? (Killed everyone who could write otherwise?)

Random, ignore if u don't get d question: Is morality tied to profit, are we being prudent, pragmatic or hyocrites?

Mr_Anony: With all due respect, you have made a long ramble and have come round to discussing the selfish gene theory.
In all this, you have eliminated the very core of what morality is. What do I mean?

Morality is meaningless without rational choice. Morality is such that we expect good moral choices to be rewarded and bad moral choices punished. We do not hold a person morally accountable for an action if he had no choice.

Things like an animal defending another animal are not considered moral or immoral but are activities which aid the animal or it's kin in survival.

We don't consider it particularly a good deed when you risk your life for your siblings, but it is considered to have much more moral value when you risk your life for total strangers. If you write this of as "we evolved that way" then you are undermining the power of choice therefore it is not really a moral decision but an instinct. If that is the case, saving the stranger isn't a particularly good deed but just another one of those things humans do. It's just another way of saying "God did it" only it is said in secular lingo.

I'll give you a scenario:
Imagine an army unit is retreating from the enemy and the commander sees that they won't get away fast enough so

1. he decides to run in another direction and serve as a decoy in the process he sacrifices his life so that the rest of the unit has a greater chance of survival.

2. he decides to kill the slowest soldier so that the rest of unit can move faster and have a better chance of survival.

You will notice that both decisions will aid survival of the species.

From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, option 2 is better because not only do more people survive, the weaker person has been eliminated hence making it more unlikely that his weak genes will be passed on.

But from a moral standpoint, option 1 has far more moral value even though the strongest person has been eliminated.

Self-sacrifice in humans is by nature at loggerheads with our survival.

Can't do point by point at the moment, so bear with the structure of the post. This a merry go round atm

Morality does not imply rational by default. Implying some sort of rational reward for morality defeats the purpose of absolute altruism, doesn't it? Many things considered morally good in some cultures are silly/evil/irrational in others. In the example you give, if he chooses the morally 'superior' choice he'd be scoffed at in many, many cultures. In others he'd be praised as a hero going the extra mile for his fellow clan members, perhaps spurring them on and unleashing hidden potential amongst the 'weak' members.

Feeling bad, or feeling good with regards to morals has an instinctive element that cannot be ignored. The question is: is it programmed by nature or nurture?

This is a highly subjective issue, or maybe not. Best we can do is look for the environmental, or biological, factors involved. These are the only elements that can be classified as objective.

Random: how dare u, u don't like rambles! I forgive u only because ur reply has some quality in it.. Pleb.. In order to not get into long redundant posts we should do this bit by bit imo

^^^
The motivation can be considered subjectively by whoever is judging. It's virtually impossible to label an act as truly, objectively altruistic. One can always interpret an altruistic act as selfish.

With morality we aren't primarily dealing with physical law, or even abstract objective laws like mathematics. We are dealing with fairly subjective, what should
be laws, not what is. The role of the environment does put some objectivity into it though, hence my use of the word primarily. Freewill might be an illusion, and there is a biological need to settle these issues.

Btw, I was not trying to show how man may consider self-sacrifise more important than his life, I'm just blabbing about how morality works. Let's get to that though.


In the typical social structure of many species you find an alpha, aggressive king of the hill for the most part laying down the law. He bullies the others sure, but they don't leave. This is because their chances of survival are higher if they remain in the group (besides the alpha will eventually get old anyways, or he could die/injured etc and then the dynamics could change and suddenly he's boss etc, btw guess who's the alpha for many humans. Ever wonder why major deities are male boss-like figures? Sometimes they have waifus to do the housework etc). These animals are born with this behaviour pre-programmed. You could say it is instinctive.

Surviving in groups like these heightens the chance of your genes spreading. It might not be you directly, but your genetic material is likely shared with your kin. Each group, btw, is in direct competition with other similar groups, even of other species. Zealots and whatnot have aided as far as natural selection is concerned. We humans have built constructs to motivate us to go that extra mile (religion, culture in general) thus aiding the chances of the groups survival. If a trait helps a species survive, then most likely you will see that trait spring up amongst its members. In this case altruism obviously aids a groups chances. Wars demonstrate this.
in other species, a pig caught in the wild would rather than run make as much noise as possible to alert others and serve as a decoy (I'll need to verify this, but I remember reading this).

Even in the case of a single individual, who has tried to cut himself from society, he did not give birth to himself nor will he live forever. Biologically he will have the capacity for altruism, other factors (emotions, circumstances) will come into play during real time operation of course.

Culture/religion have a few purposes, one is to organize contracts between its members/adherents so as to benefit all, it helps build trust. A moral code is an integral part of this. When coming into contact with someone not from your cultural/religious background to do business.. Well, look at 9ja. It follows that it is easier for many to be altruistic mostly with members of their tribe. In fact evolution favors this (others may be fed up with society, evolution doesn't favor these genes though, society may shun and they may not feel the need to compete, their genes won't propagate as much). Survival of your tribe aids with survival of your genes, thus altruism is beneficial. Religion takes this further, uniting tribes, competing against other religions and the elements. But even without these factors, a loner would still have biological imperative to be altruistic.

Edit: I just discovered sociobiology btw, interesting stuff, similar to my conclusions but well researched, refined etc. Also to summarize, sort of, self-sacrifise does not contradict survival

Bélla3: like i sa.id, that was in the past. Ask the bible bashers to check wel, there are other stiffer punishments. And that was a law to checkmate the wayward isrealites

Oh yes, it was complicated. Sadly, it still is in many parts of the world. It's very troubling, least one can do is discourage it. Even if the alternative may seem bad. Sometimes being practical is not an option, and people need to make a stand.

Lucky us to be born in this era. In a 100 years our descendants would be saying the same thing too though

truthislight: ^^^^
West of my precious time.

Resorted to use of foul language/insult.

That is actually a mark of weakness.

I will leave you alone. Less i birth in the mud with you.

Have a nice day.
Peace.

Thanks

^^^
You sound like you have issues with "smart guys". You went on a similar rant with me iirc. If "smart guys" did something wrong to you don't take it personally. There are all sorts of intelligences, "smart guys" may be dumber than you in other areas. Certain members of this forum, not to mention the outer world, prove with distinction that you don't have to be a "smart guy" to succeed. Besides, take your issues out on whoever jizzed in your breakfast, not us.

Try and understand, as far as "smart guys" are concerned, there's nothing wrong with human lifespan. Even if there were it wouldn't be critical to our survival (else we'd be extinct). Evolution doesn't have a purpose, but you're so deluded and arrogant that you think the sun shines just for you, the universe rotates around you, and an all powerful being that incidentally looks just like one of us (complete with beard, no less), your special friend that makes you feel special, loved and will give you good things if you ingratiate constantly, is trolling us.

If you have a problem with evolution being purposeless, that's your problem. Make shi.t up, but don't expect the rest of us to humour you.

Animu:
Elfen Lied
Baccano
Shigurui

Mango:
Gantz
Beserk (I only read like 2 volumes though)..

If just downright disturbing. Not necessarily onscreen, probably more troubling than the ones above though
Animu:
Higurashi
Now and then, here and there (very, very, troubling...)
Claymore (early episodes)
FMA , first rendition (I'll never forget that doctor, with his daughter *shivers*)

Actually, probably many others. There's some really sick stuff out there...
bible bla... heh heh

Bélla3: no be smal thing o.
Mac daddy, if u rape a girl u must marry her! What is wickdnes is dat?

I'm not sure if you're playing around, but if you are fine with marrying someone that raped you, that's fine, your prerogative. Many other women though would not be happy just meekly surrendering. They won't be happy living, cooking, banging etc the person who did something that horrible to them potentially for the rest of their lives. In essence, it's slavery. You encourage such behavior you get in the way of their struggle. That's selfish because, again, if it's fine with you that does not mean it's ok for others, and this is a basic rights issue.

This seems to be a christian only thread so.... I'm off. That statement just worried me.

Mr_Anony: Still looking forward to your argument. Stop with the trailers and show us the movie.

Calm down I've already told you there's enough Wiegraf to go round. Also, the fate of the universe rests on this. You don't want it blowing up. Think of the children

Mr_Anony: If all morality is man-made and not transcendental and all men are equal, then one man's morality is not binding on another man.
It also follows that each man's morality is subjective to him.
If a man's morality is subject to him, then it must benefit him best.
If a man's morality is such that it benefits him best, then the preservation of himself must be the highest law within his moral frame work.

On the other hand......

If within a man's moral frame work, his self preservation is not the highest law, then the ultimate good must benefit something or someone other than himself.
This thing that deserves the ultimate good must then be more important than the man.
The moral law then must be transcendental to the man for it to favor something of higher importance than the man. . . .and since all men are equal he must expect other people to hold it in higher regard than themselves i.e. be bound by this moral law.
Now if it is true that this morality is truly transcendental then it cannot be man-made and everyone should be bound by it.

You're igonoring the environment, at least.

Back to the basics, we've already said all this before but meh. Human ethics, morality, formed by man in order to deal with fellow man. Teamwork has been successful in our battle against the elements, natural selection favors it. Similar traits are found in many other species. Biologists apparently believe the other great apes (and maybe elephants) have a fairly complex social structure/moral code as well, more sophisticated than the usual alpha male etc system.

Morality is subjective, the Nazis were morally good as far as they were concerned. However, in order to support morality or other such constructs you first of all need a fairly complicated machine, like our brains. This does come preconfigured with some code(just like the survival instinct is programmed into most of us), and the potential to be tuned to a degree by the environment (with morality it's a wee bit like learning a language, but more instinctual among other things). Empathy has been shown to have genetic roots for instance. As with regards to how morality works we come to the similar nature vs nurture debate in personality development; what plays the dominant role in shaping your basic moral code, nature or nurture?

Both. So it isn't
"It also follows that each man's morality is subjective to him."
It's more
"It also follows that each man's morality is subjective to him and environmental factors."
Environment includes society, not just physical limitations.

There's more, but I want to see how you take it from here.

@anony

Who would have thought, my fellow armchairs have been attacking this since well, forever. I would start from a different standpoint

Morality is subjective
It is not transcendental

And this alone, is a huge debate(, but science may be helping). We are, basically, arguing about the nature of morality. No time, etc, to fully explore this atm. Bare with me, but I'm sure you realize how expensive time is. I will answer though, I've seen a few interesting arguments, both for and against my viewpoint that I want to digest. I am guessing that from your premise, transcendental does not necessarily mean god? More like something objective not setup by man, yes? We'll get to that (hopefully....)

I hope the muslims gave you meat, if they didn't they were bad...

plaetton: Yeah, it kind of hit home with me because, from as far back as I could remember as child,religion never ever made sense to me. I thought I was weird.
No matter how many times I went to sunday school, no matter how many times I read the bible,It just never penetrated, but my fascination with it continued to grow.It still fascinates me greatly, which explains my addiction to Nl religious forum. lol.

The funny fact is that most of the men on my mother's side were the same,not openly atheistss but agnostics. So I wonder If I inherited the genes from that side of my family.
So the question for you is, do you that these personality traits are genetic?

Nature vs nurture is hotly debated. Also debated is if it's possible to genuinely change once preferences over time, or is it at best like handedness (a right handed could learn to use his left just as well, but would still be predominantly regarded as right handed by some). Jung himself thought your preference changes over time and is affected by the environment of course.

I can't get links now to some studies but I'll post them here later. Intoversion/extroversion has been shown to have a physical basis. Introverts do actually get more feedback from their senses than extroverts, or at least perceive more, and also have observably different brain types. So introverts generally have more data to work with, making them tire more quickly than an extrovert in social situations. Extroverts on the other need more data to keep them occupied and so seek out activity more. EDIT It might not be hereditary, I'll have to confirm that, I think it is though

The rest has not been determined yet. I subscribe to the idea that it's a mixture of both nature and nurture. I think you are born within a range, and nurture influences which particular part of this spectrum you land on. You can always learn to use your left hand, but for many that would be really difficult. So I tend to think that nature is the most dominant factor, but nurture could play a role, sometimes drastic, in other situations.

Another example that supports nature having the more dominant role. We all know physiology plays a role in crafting your personality, but just read this as it's somewhat interesting. There was another study in which some poor folk who had been in accidents which affected part of their brains related to emotion, making them emotionless, where monitored. By all accounts they became rather different. One peculiar trait they all displayed was the inability to make the simplest choices, like what tie to wear. Apparently, as all the ties were now equally desirable, as all they now cared about was that tie be a tie (color etc becomes irrelevant), they couldn't make up their minds as to which was objectively best. I like this study because it illustrates how emotions, which I have very little regard for usually, are important. Anyways, the point is as we all know there are many other similar studies, so physiology definitely plays a big part in shaping personality (EDIT: also thinking vs feeling, or objective/cold vs subjective/emotional is a key part of the MBTI scale), but how much of that is hereditary is still open to debate.

There is also a rather strong correlation between having aspergers and being INTx. Basically, most people with aspergers test INTx, and aspergers has genetic roots. Sometimes, one is mistaken for the other, many INTx look like they have aspergers to the untrained but they are 2 very different things. Implications of this correlation are hotly debated too though as well. Some think confirmation bias influence the results.

^^
Pondering human nature in the manner of the op is, like you imply, challenging. So I just want to as some technical questions here.
Is it possible to be unaware of the purpose? I'm guessing you conclude yes?
Can you influence the path you choose on the way to the purpose? Again I'm guessing you imply yes, but only to a certain degree.
Is the purpose set in stone?

plaetton: I read somewhere, and I dont know if it is related to this type of personality assessment, that about 15% of people are completely immune from any type of mental programming such as Religious beliefs, mind control, Brainwashing ,hypnotism and even advertising.

I don't think that's related to this, but that's interesting. I wonder what a derren brown has to say to that. If you do remember where you read that pls post it here. I know mentalists just don't pick anyone to say hypnotize, they watch for signs of a persons susceptibility to their tricks.

With relation to this I would say Ns would actually be more succeptible then an S in some situations. So long as you tell an N what he wants to hear judiciously, leave him alone then watch his imagination go all over the place. Hell, he'll even create more imaginary friends for you. But for NTs in particular, when they do finally apply logic to the trick, they would then wonder whatthef.uckhowdidthiswhendidthiseven ... And authority doesn't work with us, you may be worshiped by others (like 'big men' in this country are) but so long as what you say does not make sense, well, f.uck you kindly. That's one of the reasons iconoclasts are usually NT (all 4 atheist horsemen are NT, for instance).

A lot of the time Ss simply don't want to deliberate (the artisans, they don't find thinking fun, they'd much rather do) or are generally afraid of the unexpected (guardians). These traits of course could be exploited by mentalists

plaetton: [/b]

Yeah, He's quite an ubiquitos fellow. Always following and hounding poor Africans.
Someone should tell him to leave my brethren alone and get a job, for christ sake.
LOL.

yup, busy body. He's most likely extroverted, I'd have him as ENTJ, like Julius Caesar and Bill Gates (Bill Gates though is often debated, some think he's an introvert parading as an extrovert, I personally don't think so though)

musKeeto: Took the test some months back.

INTP
Agnostic, on a scale, I'd be closer to atheism than theism..

I am not a fan of personality classification tests, but this was about 90% accurate..

Oh yes, this should never be taken too seriously. It's a test of your preferences, not what you will do or your potential. I've heard of some discrimination based on this, that's just as stooopid as it gets.

It is very well put together though, and can help one understand himself and the environment, ie if you having issues dealing with the world in general ( relating to guardians in my case, for instance). Like my need to procastinate (summed up as I Need To Procastinate).. Oh sh.it, I'm doing it again.. better.

As exected, most skeptic regulars would be INTx. Something like only 1 in 25 people are INTx as well