Kevin Beal

I think you might want to reconsider your priorities.

I also test as an INTP or INTJ, but the other 3 are usually the same. I think it's kind of fun and like to hear what other people's results are, but I've never found any way that it helps me understand the world or myself any better, probably just because I don't know enough about it. Also, I imagine that if I'm in a different mood, my test results will be different, like if I'm craving social interactions, I might testing as ENTP or ENFP. It's obviously going to be limited, but is the limitation enough to render it a bad basis for study or analysis? Are you aware of any studies which take MBTI into account to offer predictive power, like in incidences of violent crime or success in life? I'd love to see some hard science because now it just seems more of a fun thing, to me.

I like your breakdown, although I was slightly confused about your definitions of objective/subjective. I wonder what you think about the question being phrased this way: is the truth of moral propositions observer relative or observer independent?

Nice work! Love the portfolio and the colorful flat design approach. Very cool projects you've featured, too. Is the FDR design online somewhere?

It has resulted in agreeing to disagree after some flattery before, yes. (I am very susceptible to flattery). The one time where I was told explicitly that my behavior was "seductive", it did not end that way and she told me that she appreciated what I said and she acted on it. This particular woman is someone I trust a great deal, and no it didn't end up in a romantic relationship, unfortunately for me, fortunately for her husband. I knew a straight married woman who loved hanging out with gay men. She made it sound like "of course women would want to do that, gay men are so funny and know how to have a good time". But, I can only think of the one example. I don't know very many gay men, but I was under the impression that they had straight women lining up to be their friends. I could be totally wrong about that. Yea. I think in my experience it's often about the whole judgmental thing, like with the guys she can just let rip on somebody else without fear of being considered too judgmental. On account of how guys tend to more irreverent. Which is interesting to me because I find myself sometimes in the position of encouraging the ladies to speak more freely about things like what and who they hate. Maybe again it's just the people I hang around, but the lady folk seem to act sometimes as if there is an invisible person in the room who will condemn them if they say what they are really thinking (e.x. "oh no, fuck her, she's a bitch"). You get a lot of minimizing and the most favorable phrasings and excuses like "she must really be in a bad place to be yelling at people like that, poor her". I honestly don't know. Did she decide to stop waiting to sleep with you?

Hi Kiri! How did find the show? What do you love about philosophy?

Completely hilarious Onion article! Sorry about the craziness of these women, ugh! I've noticed what you are talking about too, but it reminds me of an exception to the rule which I find very interesting. I suspect that a lot of women have an ambivalent relationship with male contradiction. On the one hand, it gets in the way of whatever status thing is going on that I barely understand and that, I imagine, is irritating for them, but at the same time, I've gotten fed up with some of the shit these ladies were saying (in this case about how people shouldn't judge - while judging other people) and I pointed out how irrational what they were saying was in my honestly annoyed tone. When they backpedalled, I stuck in there and didn't let the equivocations slide. I was very surprised later to find out that, despite their frustration with me and not admitting they were wrong, it made me look really attractive. I was told it was "seductive" even which makes me really want to do it more often It reminds me of those scenes in movies where a man and woman are arguing and it escalates to this point where they are in each other's faces, and then *snap* they are making out and some steamy united sexual congress commences. Or when a woman is very irritable and all the younger guys are talking about how she's being, . . . *cough*, . . . mean, and the older guy laughs at their naivety and reveals that she's actually horny. I don't understand it at all. If a lady who's reading this has insight into this, I'd love to hear a woman's perspective on this. And as far as the single woman in male company thing goes, I think your explanation is part of it, but incomplete. Lesbians have told me this too, and married women and women who were much older who would almost certainly not expect to have a relationship with any of the younger fellas in the group. I am convinced it's something to do with the way men communicate with each other.

So, I've had this one scene play out a bunch of times where I'm hanging out with some guys and there's a lady chillaxin' with us and the topic will come up about the differences of dudes hanging out versus ladies hanging out, and almost without exception the woman of the group (when asked) will share that they prefer just hanging out with guys over hanging out with females. Often they will mention that women are crazy, or something to that effect. I wonder what this is all about. I generally prefer the company of men, myself, but sometimes hanging out with the gals can be fun. Maybe it's just whatever mood I'm in, I don't know. I'm not entirely sure why that is. One thing I know is that when I'm hanging out with the gals, it's a little harder to get yourself into the conversation since they seem to have fewer and shorter pauses between thoughts. And there's this weird thing I've noticed (maybe it's just the company I keep) where the ladies like to form consensus about things, like who's in the in-group and who's in the out-group which I really don't like since it never seems to be about principles and just strikes me as status and hierarchies. Questions for discussion: 1) Have you heard this as a guy, or thought it as a woman? 2) What are some of the differences you've noticed between hanging with the girls vs the guys? 3) Why do you think women often prefer hanging out with the fellas, and why do you think the women sometimes find other women to be "crazy"? 4) Do you prefer the company of men over women? Why, why not?

Great point. I was lucky enough to start working at 13 (in Arizona you can work that early if you work for the state) and I found it enormously valuable in terms of developing a work ethic, learning what employers need, satisfying the customer, etc. I had to grow up somewhat early, but not as early as kids used to, as you've pointed out. I don't think it's intuitive for people who were denied that love and affection as children, because they want to promote it to the level of a virtue. That is, they want to say it's something good people do, something to expect from other people and resent them should they deny it. Constantly seeking to get what they never got as children. At least, that's how a bunch of people I know operate and have made me out to be an asshole when I strongly object. I might even have the opposite problem since I resent it so much when people try and manipulate me into offering that to them that I remain very very suspicious of anybody's claim that they love me. Maybe that's TMI or getting too far off topic, but those are my thoughts anyway.

How a man's heart is murdered

That's why I think that. Plus the fact that everything I say is twisted into some kind of horrible thing that I'm doing.

That's a nice jab. Really. It's clever and funny. But I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I have given up. You might not have seen where I repeated that above, since there is all this tedious moderation recently. God I hate that. I don't think you are going to be receptive to this, but I had an idea I felt like sharing. The theme of all of this has to do with feeling helpless and not having our thoughts heard and understood, which is totally frustrating. Since something here is obviously dysfunctional, it could be that one of us is infecting the other with our own helplessness by doing to the other what was done to us: invalidation. I think it's a bit tricky since in order to protect yourself from invalidation, you have to ignore to some degree what the other person says, and if both of us feel that we are not being listened to (I do) then if that ignoring happens it will feel even more like invalidation. The invalidator should be rejected in order not to internalize the false self doubt, and develop a part of ourselves which acts to invalidate ourselves. The ignoring is a defense mechanism and when the reason for doing so is forgotten and repressed, the ignoring is divorced from actual instances of invalidation and applied to situations which would trigger memories of being chronically invalidated: erased. So, before any exploration occurs, a drive to deny what the other person is saying happens to spare ourselves the (perceived) craziness of being erased. I'm curious about your experience of the conversation itself, ignoring the content. Since you don't trust me, I won't ask you to. I'm not trying to help you, anyway. I don't like you. I'm just curious, in case you felt like sharing. I have a history of being invalidated. It's horrible. It's enraging and a helpless place to be. It's almost like being murdered, like your sense of self is being murdered so that all is left is a hollowed out shell of a person. When I believe that's what's occurring, I feel contempt for that person. Does that sound familiar at all? I'm not interested in debating you, but this is a philosophy forum and I'd like to tease apart some useful principles.

I think that's a really good point. And Stef has actually mentioned before that the nuclear family is communist in nature. I think it's interesting just how many things are reversed in the nuclear family / childhood as in the family's relationship with the rest of the world. Children absolutely need and deserve unconditional love, for instance, but that in an adult relationship is enabling, creepy and gross. Children are expected to be narcissistic to some degree and it's healthy, but adult narcissists are mostly horribly dysfunctional people. Children should not be expected to pay for all the resources they consume as children since they did not choose to be there, but that would be a terrible lack of boundaries if from an adult. Etcetera.

Sorry, I don't know about Skyping in the near future. But I hope me giving my thoughts through text (despite you asking not to) will be of some use. What do you mean by "true self" and why would you want to be that 100% of the time? I put on a persona when I'm out in public. I actually had to learn how to do this because I wasn't doing it before, and in not doing it, I was very anxious out in public. My therapist and I worked on a figurative mask I could wear so that my inner experience wasn't being broadcast at all times. A lot of people will react to your fear and insecurity with aggression because they feel offended on some level by it, like you are insulting them. A persona helps keep other people from attacking or exploiting you. I don't know exactly what you are talking about, but I'm not convinced that your unconscious is doing you a disservice. In fact, I'm betting money, it's doing something very wise and protecting you. Personally, I am not vulnerable with people unless they honor my vulnerability, or I'm trying to show strength through my vulnerability and encourage other people to do the same. I consider it an honor rather than an expectation. And treating yourself like you should just be vulnerably yourself all the time doesn't strike me as honoring it.

I'm not asking you what you accept or reject. I'm simply asking for an example. Can you provide it or can't you?

When I say "obtuse", I actually mean when people feign misunderstanding or confusion as a way of avoiding a conclusion. That is to say that he really could understand it if he tried, but isn't putting any effort into it. If you mean to say that I could be more succinct or concise or that I use words which are needlessly complicated, I accept that criticism enthusiastically. I think you are right. I have been working on that recently. I find it annoying when other people do that, so I think it's definitely worth mentioning. Thank you. I think I do that to sound smarter than I really am . I am vain at times.

Or maybe my capacity to see and address it, in combination with my certainty, is a sign that I actually have some idea of what I'm talking about. I admit fault all the time. I've done it multiple times in this very thread. I may have just missed it, but I don't think I've ever seen you admit when you got something wrong. Can you point me to it if you have? And months of damage? What are you talking about? He took the time to understand my case in this thread and demonstrated an understanding of it. You didn't. I got the impression that you were just passively drooling on your keyboard and when my argument didn't penetrate, you concluded that this was my failing. If one man can do it, another can do it.

The John Stewart video was the one I introduced my friend to the show with. It's a great one. And I don't remember the other video you mentioned. I'll have to check it out And while it is definitely true that a lot of people in the community are alone and/or isolated, I don't think it has to be that way. I video / audio conference with people from the community on a regular basis and find it super valuable and enjoyable, and I try and persistently pester the people in my life with discussion about these topics, despite the occasional protest.

Hi Dug! Welcome to the boards. What was the first video that you watched? There are so many different topics raised that it's always interesting to hear how people became interested in the show, or more importantly, in philosophy. I'd love to hear more if you felt like sharing I don't know about Idaho, sorry

My mistake. I thought you said something like that. I went through the thread again and I didn't see it. Thanks for the correction! Also, could you please stop referring to me as "Mr Beal"? It makes me feel weird, like I'm a test subject or something... Also, I have 3 questions for you: 1) What's with the signature "Providing value doesn't justify providing anti-value. I won't pay to be censored."? 2) What's with the member title "collateral damage"? 3) Have you done therapy? I'm genuinely curious, not a trap. If you haven't, it doesn't make you wrong, obviously. I was suggesting that to some degree, but it I was mistaken. Thank you for clarifying. What you are saying makes total sense. No disagreement here. I just want to focus on what I think is most problematic in the interaction rather than the response to it, which you already seem to understand, so, I guess that's what I get for assuming And the conclusion I was referring to that we came to was simply that he's bothersome. Additionally, I would add the passive aggressive bit, and I think for my own sanity: obtuse. I really would love to get a second opinion about that last one, though. Sure, I was using unnecessary jargon as Rob pointed out, but if you were actually trying to understand, I think you could get it. Rob did, and then explained it much more simply, lol.

And I love this accusation that I'm throwing my weight around to defend the status quo, like my reputation score is enough that people don't have to check my reasoning. Part of me would love it if it were true, but it's very clearly not true. If I tried and said that people should listen to me because of my reputation score, I would be heavily criticized, if not ridiculed. And it's not like I never get downvoted, I get downvoted often. This position of mine that confrontation is not a bad thing is not widely appreciated, for example. I piss people off all the time, it seems. But I don't go around like I'm a martyr, talking about myself like I'm bringing hard truths and people just can't handle it. God, I hate that.

And you're not alone. Dsayers says that people have commented to him privately that his detractors are jerks and don't know what they are talking about. I also know that Rob, Prolix and I are not the only ones who've arrived at this conclusion, either. You can refer to when Dsayers accused Rob of simply believing anything I say simply because I said it, because I have status or something (post #35), for one example of this. What value does calling someone a "dick" bring? Well it forces this necessary conversation for one. Whether or not it's "ok" (whatever that means) it is (if we are right) a response to aggression. It makes no sense logically to criticize the person who responds to aggression unless their response is way beyond necessary, like if Rob started making threats or something. Imagine how frustrating it would be if you got slapped in the face and when you got mad about it, people try and manage you by telling you that no, actually you didn't get slapped in the face. They appeal to nice platitudes around how you shouldn't be confrontational and that we should all get along, all the while the face slapper is receiving sympathy. You don't see it? Well, how about all the framing of me that I cannot take any criticism ever? (post #35 again) There is nothing wrong with confrontation. Dsayers is a big boy. He can handle some salty words.

Actually, this is asked when new people join the boards. You can view my profile and scroll to the bottom to see what it looks like. I also make a point of asking people who've introduced themselves in that sub forum questions like this. In my experience, it is completely random. I don't have analytics to look at and maybe the staff know, but anything and everything seems to be the introduction. I think that's very interesting. Word of mouth seems to be underrepresented. The two most common ones I've seen are people who saw the Zeitgeist debates and video responses, and also viewers of the Joe Rogan Experience. But still very random.

For whose benefit do we withhold salty words? I doubt dsayers minds terribly the fact that Rob used the word "dick" rather than some other phrasing that means essentially the same thing, in so many neutral words. I really don't think that word choice is the thing worth focusing on the most. I've had people use NVC on me to try and shut me up. It was just another brand of sublimated hostility in those cases. It's the hidden nature of it that pisses me off so much. I think that whatever way you cut it, under the table aggression is worse than overt aggression, or win-win negotiation (obviously), because if it's sublimated and hiding behind creative word choice, you can't see it very easily and when you react to the aggression hiding underneath, you are often the one who's criticized, by people who aren't paying much attention. If it's overt aggression at least it's honest in that respect and we don't have to deal with the craziness of it's subterranean nature (denial, more verbal abuse, etc). It's like having an economic mind, seeing the unseen costs. Having an eye for passive aggression, yes-but personalities, pedantry, etc. Some people just don't see it very easily. They don't see the bee who stings you, they just see you waving your arms frantically trying to swat it away and telling you that you are a crazy person. And if you are in a space where you are choosing your words to avoid being overtly aggressive, then I'm betting that will just come out as passive aggression, in nicer terms. If you have a problem with win-win vs win-lose, then I think the entire message should be reconsidered at that point. At least, that's what makes sense to me now in the moment. Of course, you can let me know if you think I'm full of it