₦airaland Forum

Last letter, P for perceivers, J for judgers. This letter is not in the original framework, it was added by myers so as to simplify the system. It is one of the easier to spot though when you are trying to determine a persons preference.

A J will tell you he'll be there at 9, then show up at least by 8:50. They are reliable, capable of being studious, etc. In essence, they judge externally. Work involves others, schedules etc

Ps on the other, show up a year later with a smile and tell you they finally nailed it, as if that's the most natural thing in the world. They aren't lazy, sadly they just judge internally, in other words they pay more attention to their internal standards than the external worlds judgment. They tend to wait for inspiration, work in bursts. They can expend obscene amounts of energy during these periods, then hibernate.

This factor doesn't affect religion much too, imo.

plaetton: I have known that I'm definitely an introvert. I get dizzy in a crowd.

Most regulars on an internet forum are, surprise surprise, intraverts. For myriad reasons, of course

Third letter is for T for thinking, or F for feeling. Most men are Ts, most females Fs, that alone should give you an idea of what they represent. Bear in mind though up to 40% of women are T, and men F.

Ts place an emphasis on being fair, objective. Fs can't get rid of subjectivity (dammit). Fs are more or less people people, they'll tell you they love you, mean it and expect you return the favour. If you don't, it could lead to trouble. They avoid unnecessary conflict, for instance arguing for sport, as harming 'feelings' seems to be a big deal, etc

Ts on the other, actions speak louder than words, objectivity objectivity objectivity etc. Of course this means we are usually useless at dealing with matters of the heart, a very important part of life.

Obviously affects religious beliefs, Fs are by default more attracted to spirituality/religion than Ts. Catch here though is that for the most part Ss just follow the religion of their parents, it's Ns with their imagination and usually global outlook that are influenced by this factor when it comes religion.

so Ns will question, apply imagination, and their decision will be aided by their being either objective or subjective.

Incorrigible atheist or religious nut it is then.

The second letter N for iNtuition, S for Sensing. This is not so easy to recognize initially, but in the opinion of many it is the most important factor.

Sensors are practical folk. They give weight to what they can see, feel, taste etc. Basically they give precedence to their senses. Top sport men, musicians, artists are usually sensors for instance.

Intuitives pay more attention to the abstract than sensors. For the stronger intuitives an idea could be more important to them than actual physical stuff. Most top notch writers, scientists are usually intuitive.

There are a lot more sensors than intuitives.

This affects religiosity, imo. Especially when in synergy with other letters (it's better described in terms of 'functions', but that is part of the more complicated and ultimately better version of the framework). Sensors, practical folk that they are, are more likely to just accept the religion of their parents, especially the xSxJ sensors. Intuitives on the other hand, especially xNTx intuitives (or d mastah race to d rest of u) will attack the subject with logic. xNFx intuitives, hippies that they are, are probably going to be very spiritual at the very least. New religions often originate from NFs.

Plenty of literature online, but I'll still bore you with this..

Based on the work of carl jung (whom dawkins states thought his books used to spontaneously combust, let's just say he could be weird at times). The original work is a bit voluminous and also undecipharable at first glance. The mbti is the more accessible and in some ways advanced version of this by issabel myers and her daughter. One of the reasons they put it together was to help women going into the work force during world war 2 find potentially better jobs

For the simplified version..
First letter I or E, intravert (jungs spelling) or extrovert.

It is not about being shy or confident, its about energy. Intraverts usually pick up energy when they are alone, extroverts the opposite. So at a party for instance, the average extrovert will get more energetic as time goes on, the reverse for introverts. You could be a shy extrovert (think some geeks) and more commonly confident intravert (think clint eastwood, bruce lee). But leave an intravert around people long enough and he will show irritation. Some extroverts take this personally, but its not. Extroverts on the other hand, are almost constantly looking for people they can suck energy from (vampires).

I doubt this letter has anything to do with religiosity.

Mr_Anony: Lol, it is more or less the same as the other one only with more words.

Yup, more or else. I don't think I've ever read that article in one sitting, and I've read it a lot

What you describe is normal, curiosity is a key trait, combined with open ended analysis. Everything is subject to change (even at the last minute, much to the annoyance of SJ types in particular). Another key trait is that the decision must be your own (so long as the topic is one you take seriously) and logically sound to you.

That said stop raping logic

Mr_Anony: INTP
Christian

Why mr anony, welcome to the mastah race (well actually this would imply you've always been a member). Bump fist. You abuse our legendary love for logic though with your religious beliefs

We make up 20% of mensah (and I've seen other polls that have us in a considerable lead as secondary school students in the 'gifted' group) , roughly 2-4% of the general population. We also look to einstein as our poster boy (stereotypical actally). We can afford to let INTJs claim newton

Emotionally though, we are infamously inept...

Edit: you go on and on about logic in your current thread. You probably really are guilty of being intp. This is one of the most famous descriptions

www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html

Edit again!!
Oops, I meant this one. The other one is pretty generic, this is the real deal

www.intp.org/intprofile.html

Avicenna: INTJ
Atheist.
I don't know about status oo.

Status quo? You mean the average INTJs disposition? If so, godless dictator

www.intjforum.com/showthread.php?t=41503

I also like these lists, it shows how the average everday people view us I suppose

www.similarminds.com/jung/intj.html



Take solace in the fact that 33% of mensa, a high iq society, is INTJ despite the fact that at best INTJs make up 2-3% of the general public

Let's make so rather obvious predictions, if you will. Do you know your mbti (a personality assessment system of sorts) type? If you don't, take a test here

www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

If you already do, or after you've found out, post:

Your type
Your religious beliefs/status/whatever

I can predict that most atheists will be NT (xNTx). If enough people play I'll tell why.
Go

Also, if you know your type, read this rather good manual on picking a religion for yourself

www.player2000gi.alotspace.com/religion_and_type.htm

And this is not exact science, don't take it too seriously

cyrexx:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

This is a great series.

buzugee: SCARY THOUGHT. YOU EAT WHAT YOU LOVE. I HATE TO SEE WHAT YOU WILL DO TO WHAT YOU HATE

Yup, hypocritical but they're just so damned delicious. I've even eaten my semi-pet ducks before, I cried a bit but it was all good. I propose we develop our meat from stem cells from now on.

Jasiel: Now this is dumb

And bumping it was not?

This was sort of a weird thread. Seems to me like the question was posed to atheists, yet a mod from the muslim section landed uninvited. Or am I missing something here?

okeyxyz: Well, we'll probably never know in an objective manner weather or not he physically walked this earth, My concern is that every query be structured to reflect it's time and circumstances surrounding such claim, eg, i object to people querying jesus like they'd do pharaoh/caeser. But at the end of the day, The person of jesus is not even my basis for being a christian, I don't know if he's black as some claim, or weather he and mary magdalen had a "thing" as some also claim, I'm more interested in the message & principle of christianity which he started. It's the most perfect of any i'd ever heard or known. shikena!!

The Jesus ethos at its core is really cool, especially considering the era it was conceived in. Most religion though.. I'll leave that for now

jswags: For me i think every body wl account for his or her deeds on judgement day both humans n animals.full stop.

And how will the animals defend themselves, like pigs will speak pig in pig court? Oh, there be no court just direct sentencing? What of all the poor animals we've slaughtered for food and even sport, will we be judged for that as apparently they have souls as well? Do chickens have their own version of the 10 commandments? What of those who've never had the privilege of coming across the doctrine.

One could go on and on...

To be fair, this is one of the cutest thoughts I've come across. I love animals too (despite eating them every chance I get) but...

^^
I don't know the details, and don't particularly care as the whole premise is wrong to me so I'm definitely not going to bother memorizing quotes etc (I don't have to read harry potter to point out it's not real, or the mormon holy book, zeus etc), but from what I understand there are no records of Jesus outside of the bible (some dude met a group that were followers of Jesus but didn't meet Jesus himself, maybe other similar instances, don't know). Assuming this is true, even if you are correct about the record keeping, it changes little. The only piece of evidence available for the case of his existence is the bible, which we all know makes a few ridiculous claims so long as we remain objective. So the odds of him having existed are still low. Let's not even talk about the miracles.

buzugee: BAHAHAHAHA YEAH THEM PHONES CAN BE PESKY. BUT YEAH WHAT MY POINT IS WHY DO DEAD PEOPLE WANT TO BE REMEMBERED ? SOUNDS VERY SILLY TO ME. YOU ARE DEAD DUDE STOP WORRYING ABOUT WHO IS REMEMBERING YOU LOL

Yeah actually I feel the same way sort of. I mean after I die I won't be able to worry about it, or any other thing for that matter, simple. So it's pointless from that angle. Of course, that's no excuse to be an a##. I guess people just do good stuff for other reasons, like the ones I pointed out. When some people insinuate the chances of them becoming rapists, murderers etc increase without god and the fear of hell I don't think they quite realize what they are saying...

cyrexx: dude, i'm not trying to express any logic here, its just sarcasm.

Ha ha, no that's not what I meant, they think its more logical that an omnipotent, omniscient god is more likely then the decidedly less powerful zeus et al. It is omnipotent yet put this world together? With all the sh.it it goes through. Let's not even debate how much of a ridiculous concept the omnipotency issue is. With zeus you can dream many excuses to explain this universe's is shi.tty, like he's busy scoring somewhere or one god owes some other god money etc. Yet they proudly thump their 'one true god', as if it's more profound/logical or something.

buzugee: NOTHING TO DO WITH PROFIT. THATS YOUR EGO SPEAKING WHEN YOU SAY YOU WANT PEOPLE TO REMEMBER YOU WHEN YOU ARE GONE. ITS ALL VANITY. PERSONALLY I WOULD RATHER NOT BE REMEMBERED. YOU KNOW HOW MUCH GRIEF THAT CAUSES TO THOSE REMEMBERING YOU ?

I never said I wanted to be remembered. I'll tell you why I do good deeds though as I'm still procastinating at the moment. For one, because I believe they are the right thing to do and they benefit all of us, in this life. I also think of it as away of saying thank you to everyone who has worked hard to put a smile on my face (and there have been billions of these people through our history) and ensuring their legacy survives. Also I get to pay back the debt by putting smiles on others faces, regardless of where they're from, religion etc. Even if 'god' showed up and asked me to change my stance on this issue I'd kindly tell it to f#4k off (in fact I'd probably try to kill the sociopath, I've never claimed to be mature, that's more like humanist and jesus territory).

So your question, ah I get it. You mean what's the point of wanting to be remembered? I see.

Also, I wish I could reply in caps, but I never read the manual for this phone

buzugee: AND WHATS THE POINT OF THAT ?

Heh, so if there's no profit in it for you it's not worth it?

Evil Brain: So far, nobody has been able to defend this assertion tha juju is real. Wissezy has described what scientists call hypnopompic hallucinations aka spirits pressing you down in the night. This is a common phenomenon that is definitely not caused by witches or demons or whatever.

Do ho ho, this has happened to me before, more than once I believe. It's nice when you combo it with scratch mark on your body you don't remember getting. It's been studied? Google here I come

cyrexx: but the good thing about those "Gods" is that they they "answer" when you call on them and they dont "force" a another person to follow them by threatening eternal torture in that person's imaginary second life. quite unlike our most beneficient Allah and All-loving Yahweh.

i give our African Gods a big thumbs up

Its funny how judeo-christians fail to see that zeus et al actually make a lot more sense. They then proudly proclaim they worship one god . What an accomplishment, your logic getting worse

okeyxyz: you cannot have more results than the entities/quantities/principles causing them.

They can, I've already mentioned that. They temporally gather energy from somewhere then replace it, constantly. Overall though everything
usually adds up over time. At any exact instance you cannot predict accurately that y will be exactly here, rather you can only say it will likely be somewhere, and scan a range for its value. In theory it could be anywhere, but the odds of it being a ridiculous value are astronomical. Also yes, both x and y are vital to the system, like say velocity and location, they depend on each other. Again, like I already said, you alter x, you have then altered y [b
]truly unpredictably[/b]. This is what you seem to have a problem with. You are not the only one (einsteins 'god does not play dice' was part of his response to this. He and many others have failed to prove the theory's supporters wrong while many experiments on the other hand have so far have proven them right, like the random number generator from a vacuum I linked earlier)

okeyxyz: Well, if the odds even out as particles grow bigger, then you cannot be measuring the same particles as before because the now "bigger particle" is a different entity and a different function. As I am made up of atoms, but i am not an atom, it is not my design/function, therefore I should not be treated like one, to do such would be to violate/assault me. Atom & I = different entities, therefore if you are measuring me, I have my unique characteristics and they are defined and fixed, even if my characteristics digress, it is still within a defined/fixed range, therefore deterministic. Ditto for the atom.

Yes, most particles are made of other particles of course, atoms being rather big when compared to the scales we are talking about. Atoms are made of other particles, and they made of other particles till we get to the very basic ones (I forget which are most basic, I think the photon is one). Anyways these atoms are attracted to each other through the various forces, nuclear, gravity etc (again I forget their names, but there are 4 of them, also basically energy particles), produce a synergy of sorts through the various actions till eventually we get to a being like you. That does not means that theoretically one of the neurons in your brain cannot teleport to the moon. As far as science is concerned this is possible albeit unlikely (in fact it's possible all of you would teleport to the moon, calculating the odds of that happening though would crash your pc maybe).

As for practical purposes, I've stated several times that you can live assuming the world is deterministic. In fact I hope a deterministic model is eventually developed (the current models can't fit gravity in, so it's likely incomplete). But regardless of what I wish for, technically as far science is concerned, this universe isn't strictly deterministic. Just like a random number from your pc isn't truly random, but will do for the vast majority of tasks.

Delafruita: what do you expect as evidence?a minute of meetings?or perhaps videos?or perhaprs pictures?i used to have a lot of those due to the job my employer did on behalf of the tourism development corporation.however,that was 7years ago.

i have never been one to believe in something unless i can see it in action.i wasnt indoctrinated in the judeo-christian god.i actually come from a home where me pa is a non-chalant muslim and me ma is a christian who attends church once a year.there was no indoctrination.i tried both ways and gave them up when i realised they were just bull.

like i said earlier,some call it juju so perhaps for better understanding,i will stick with that tag.i have seen juju in action.i have watched it in action and i have witnessed the repercussions of its actions.perhaps if you're curious enough to confirm the falsity of claims of juju efficacy,you might want to take a short trip to some shrines.
start with the "araba of ife's shrine" then perhaps you should attend the olokun festival in osun-osogbo.when tourist visit,they come on the last day which is the main festival,however by virtue of our contract with NTDC and accreditation by officials,we were granted access into hitherto forbidden places all through our coverage of the 30days of the festival.friends,what my eyes saw cannot be graphically explained even by me.suffice it to say it was an eye-opener for me.
move on to the olojo festival in ife.that should be in september or early october.
by the end of that tour,i had seen enough juju in action to make me realise its efficacy.afterwards i started to pay more attention and ask questions.my sojourn took me to prof.yemi elebubon(a renowned ifa priest) who revealed a lot of things.
it will be quite impossible for me to accurately relate specific scenarios but over the years,i have looked upon rumors of such things with the realisation of that experience

You're right, that wasn't helpful
Thanks for your time though, if that's any actual consolation , have a 'like' as well

Acidosis: Seeing is believing

Heh heh, no. Also, curiosity never killed the cat.

okeyxyz: True!

The more I think about, even using your criteria you are still technically incorrect. You measure x, you alter y unpredictable, you then measure y then alter x... Reality seems to be constantly being tuned, like tv tuning of sorts. And as physics theories stand today, it will never be possible to absolutely determine certain properties, it is not an issue of equipment. I've actually already mentioned this but I've been more focused on other aspects of what a deterministic system should do.

That said, as odds even out as a particle(s) grows bigger, you can live your life assuming the universe is deterministic in most scenarios. But there's still that element of chance playing a vital role in various situations (well, chance is always there, it's a question of how important is it to said situation).

He probably never existed, even if he did the stories concerning him are extremely apocryphal.

What of the legend of Jesus? It's excellent imo. In fact, note how I spell Jesus with the capital J, I noticed it's involuntary. I spell god god, or dog, cause it usually stands for a lot sh.it imo. But the Jesus legend is really cool for the most part imo, it stands for peace, love and a lot of other cool stuff. Most christians on the other hand....

Delafruita: perhaps GTFO is a normal phrase to use to you but to sensible,sane,intelligent folks,its a phrase used by degenerate,asinine,egoistic,loun-mouthed buffoons

Evidence brah, Evidence.

I'm curious, seeing as you've been convinced I'd like to see how, considering you reject the judeo-christian god which I assume you've been indoctrinated in. I'm guessing you don't have any physical evidence and hence your reticence, regardless I'd just like to hear the story please.

Also GTFO isn't used that way in many environments, and you're already aware of that. So could you please ignore that?

There should be many reasons like~~

God is testing their faith

And also because a few people with a lot of power understand that in order to keep on having such power they have to make sure the masses believe god is testing their faith, and as this world is so sh.itty they will be rewarded in the 'next'. In this world though said powerful people will reap all the rewards, they don't like to gamble in things they can't verify, while the average person will not really try to better his situation or that of humanity in general because we can all wait till the next life to get our rewards.

Watch the pendulum in my hand, you are now sleeepyyy, that's right, sleeeppyyy. Now, you will always be good sheep, let me hear you bleat... that's right, good sheep.. have some grass, delicious? bleat if you approve... mmeeehh.... pay your tithes.... wash my feet... feed my dog.... don't complain while I rape you (not literally, of course) etc mmmmeeehhh

CLIQBOY: NONE OF THE ABOVE...NA CAFE SURE PASS

^^^ This is a superior solution
Convert books to epubs, pdf
Make them available online
provide access to the masses via cafe's, cheap internet, cheap hardware (like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi ) or other means

...wait, that's internet already sort of. Ooohh, so that's why it's so expensive in these here lands

okeyxyz: You misunderstand me, I was also speaking from a scientific perspective. I merely pointed out that you were defining determinism strictly from the point of view of the methods of observation while disregarding the phenomenon itself. Of course the methods of observation will always be limited, bound by constraints and parameters, thus any effect beyond such parameters is treated as unknown. But we know that such an effect, if it exists has to be unique, we can describe it's behavior, It has to be the result of some underlying entity/principle and if so, then it's characteristics are dependent, it is not infinite, it is determined. Unless your argument is that matter/energy can "become" by itself, in which case you are delving into "god territory" . SO, the fact that you are yet unable to predict the outcome of a natural phenomenon only demonstrates the limits of your methods, rather than the infiniteness of the phenomenon itself.




The only message missing from your argument is "according to current scientific methods", so to rephrase: "There is no way(according to current scientific methods) to determine what x would be, it is truly random", correct? Unless you are saying that nature can evolve out of nothing.

It's not missing, I state that what I say is based on current knowledge/theories a few times. Also, that is not I am saying. I'm saying theoretically, as far as science is concerned today, it will never be possible to absolutely determine certain properties of quantum particles. Just like, as an example, it's impossible for anything with mass to move faster than the speed of light. There will never be tools that can determine what x in your question would be.

There are virtual particles that pop in and out of existence all the time, performing amazing feats like walking through walls and borrowing and returning energy from where? I'm not sure (all particles do this apparently). Ask god to explain how that works. I understand they are constantly canceling themselves out, matter - antimatter. Many think the big bang is a virtual particle collision going ballistic. So long as there's spacetime there is no absolute nothing apparently.

We are not using the word determinism in the same way. All particles have properties that can be determined true, but determinism as I understand it would also require that you are able to make accurate predictions using data you have as well as repeat a process and get the exact same results. My criteria cannot be met theoretically as far as science is concerned today. I'm not sure if even yours ( which I assume is simply measuring a particles exact values) can be met as the very act of simply observing it alters its state.

Yes

By the way, can I become a southerner if we do? I won't learn any language though.