How many here see men and women as individuals?

[Minuend]

I hear a lot of crap about steretypes in regards to women and men. This sucks, because I've met people who seem intelligent and interesting, but then, out of nowhere they start this crap. So I avoid any further contact with them. It's something I absolutely can't tolreate because that attitude is what held be back when growing up.

I suppose there just comes a point when I wonder how many people are actually capable of seeing humans as induviduals. A great amount of people here is the same

 

[RaBind]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Well I'll be honest, I don't have the most just values and ideals. If people could hear my thoughts they would call me a racist, a sexist and just a complete asshole in general. I have some prejudices and stereotypical ideas, I react to people partially based on how much their action supports my stereotypical view of them. For example if I perceive someone as a stereotypical asshole, I will react to them in a more hostile way, if they do something I don't like, than if someone else whom I didn't perceive to be an asshole did the same thing.

I wouldn't go so far as to call myself unfair for doing this though, because it is natural for humans to do this. It is a way in which we can quickly identify what a person is like and decide whether we like them or not and if we should spend effort and time socializing with them.

Another factor is that they are not in my stereotypical view forever, they can change how I perceive them if they wanted to. In most cases the more I learn about a person the further they push themselves from the stereotype.

Women don't seem to be what your expect them to be. Then again the same goes for men, maybe I'm just really bad at judging people personality based on their looks.

I can see people as individuals but they have to be quite close to me. If your not my friend your the "other people".

 

[Fukyo]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

It's intellectual laziness at best, bigotry at worst.

I share your frustration.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I relate to people at an individual level. Sure, I'll have stereotypes in mind and will think about them but I do not let pre-defined concepts of groups of people largely determine how I interact with others like a close-minded snob.

It's interesting though. Some men and women enjoy or at least prefer fulfilling their stereotypes, sometimes I could see it as a positive experience and other times as off-putting.


Not sure what an induvidual is though.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I hear a lot of crap about steretypes in regards to women and men. This sucks, because I've met people who seem intelligent and interesting, but then, out of nowhere they start this crap. So I avoid any further contact with them. It's something I absolutely can't tolreate because that attitude is what held be back when growing up.

I suppose there just comes a point when I wonder how many people are actually capable of seeing humans as induviduals. A great amount of people here is the same

Watch out for the feminist spam trolling...lol.

I see people as individuals.

Not sure what an induvidual is though.

An individual is an autonomous, distinct, acting agent.

 

[Amagi82]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I occasionally joke about sexism or racism, because I find the very concept of them ridiculous and, consequently, amusing. I consider the true butt of my jokes about such subjects to be primarily targeted toward the associated bigots themselves, not the race or sex they refer to.

If I am guilty of any form of true bigotry, it's bigotry based on intelligence, for I have very little respect for people I consider intellectually worthless. I also look at people and the world like pieces in a grand chess game, and only the most intelligent and insightful people are worthy of true respect. I don't go out of my way to offend people, and I'm generally courteous, but I do enjoy playing with peoples' emotions.

 

[crippli]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

If you are invested in an identity you will fight to restrict the loss. Many identify as women or men. The more who are, the more intense the fight will be.

It could be constructive to take it up with the parents. It's too late for the people here, whatever is the preference.

You can also take it up with the doctors at the hospital that make a stamp after 5 seconds evaluations. But they are again tools for a divide between scientists and politicians. That's again controlled by economy.

Conclusion:
Hack and take control of the local bank.

I presume I am pretty bigoted at times. But I try to make an effort to not take it out on just one group or one person.

Also, not sure what an individual is. Asocial? They tend to be just shunned. Or at least not a great loss.

 

[Akuma]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I agree with the OP, I'm also annoyed by the "Women are all shallow" and "Men are all pigs" attitude that people seem to develop.
It's kinda confusing how it develops as well, surely people meet a wide variety of people during their lives? Even if they don't interact with them they surely notice...

 

[Don't mind me]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Well, claiming to have completely rid oneself of stereotypes is probably delusional, but this is far from a valid excuse for consciously treating statistical aggregates as something which applies to every object in that class. : P

The most baffling and appalling display of this type of collectivism that is noticeably prevalent however must be the "a member in that group did something wrong to me, therefore I will treat every member of that group as responsible"-type reasoning. Yuck.

Not sure what an induvidual is though.

An individual is an autonomous, distinct, acting agent.

dat dyslexia :/

 

[Fukyo]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

The most baffling and appalling display of this type of collectivism that is noticeably prevalent however must be the "a member in that group did something wrong to me, therefore I will treat every member of that group as responsible"-type reasoning. Yuck.

QFT. This pisses me off so much.

 

[Cavallier]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

The most baffling and appalling display of this type of collectivism that is noticeably prevalent however must be the "a member in that group did something wrong to me, therefore I will treat every member of that group as responsible"-type reasoning. Yuck.

This bothers me as well. It's, as Fukyo put it, lazy. It also allows a person to completely disavow any responsability for their own actions. Despicable.

 

[Puffy]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Me to, especially given that this is an MBTI forum, I would expect the discovery of types would make gender stereotyping null and void.

I think the recent "XSFPs are retards" thread annoys me just as much though. If we're just going to use MBTI for the purposes of negative stereotyping then bugger it.

This is why we can't have nice theories to play with.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

dat dyslexia :/

I do have dyslexia! Barely notices spelling or grammar mistakes... :'(

 

[crippli]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Me to, especially given that this is an MBTI forum, I would expect the discovery of types would make gender stereotyping null and void.

I think the recent "XSFPs are retards" thread annoys me just as much though. If we're just going to use MBTI for the purposes of negative stereotyping then bugger it.

This is why we can't have nice theories to play with.

Isn't the XSFP thread what you can use Jung's ideas for? The same way one can use classification of women and men. It's a classical example that theories are never the problem, it's how you use them. I.e-guns -->> The human.

I don't consider one persons application of the theory as overly relevant for the theory. Indeed perhaps not even relevant for the person.

Ouch. I feel like my mind is gooing in loops in this thread.

Like How can I see women and men as individuals. Men and women are description of two groups. Is it possible to accomplish what is asked of me? Perhaps if the question was, "do you see people as wo(men) or as persons?" I do think that is a very different question, and perhaps not what is being asked. Can not one be both, even more. Man, woman and individual? Are there objections against that. Is it better if I view someone as all 3, or pick one?

Perhaps I see persons as points in a web, and the web is clustered with points here and there.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I hear a lot of crap about steretypes in regards to women and men. This sucks, because I've met people who seem intelligent and interesting, but then, out of nowhere they start this crap. So I avoid any further contact with them. It's something I absolutely can't tolreate because that attitude is what held be back when growing up.

I suppose there just comes a point when I wonder how many people are actually capable of seeing humans as induviduals. A great amount of people here is the same

If one is relating to someone as an individual, it is best to recognize their individuality. Sometimes I have trouble with this on this board and talk to the topic rather than the individual. It is hard. If someone finds out another has one sex, religion, race, political stance, they are tempted to bring in their past impression of these if they are so disposed. If I learn of this I see it as an opportunity to add to what my previous impression is. If I see a difference, that is they seem to be against type, I am interested in how they themselves handle that.

I'll give you one. I have the impression the female correlates more highly with the F on MBTI than men do. So I'm tempted to lean on that as meaningful. That means if I learn a poster is female as you are, I just want to be more aware of feeling and thinking. My prejudice can be equal for males. If I learn a poster is probably male (how would I know?), I might tend to ignore non-overt feelings they have and run with their logic, etc. and then wind up in a bad place.

I forgot something. If one is talking about a group, then one has to take into account the interests of that group. How does one do that? Answer: one's own impression + talking to the group leader or representative.

I hope you don't hate me now.

 

[Words]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

About the people who "seem intelligent and interesting..."

There are people who are good at finding correlations, hence they "seem intelligent and interesting." Some of these people confuse correlations for causations. Some of them understand that they see correlations but they verbalize them as if they are causations. Some of them do this because they think it's much easier to explain it this way, but some also do it because they view the patterns of this universe as entirely correlational and never causal. It's either they're stupid, misunderstood or affixed to certain type of understanding.

While I can understand the 2nd reason, the 1st and the 3rd I cannot. It is irrational and must be corrected because it also leads to what I consider as immoral actions. Actually, it outrightly pisses me off! and I hate how these topics surfaces in this forum!

 

[Agent Intellect]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I treat everyone the same when I first meet them and then differentiate my treatment based on their actions and words. This tends to put people off because they expect to be treated a certain a way based on race, gender, and societal perceptions of beauty/ugliness. I think stereotypes can become a self fulfilling prophecy in many cases.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Some of these people confuse correlations for causations. Some of them understand that they see correlations but they verbalize them as if they are causations. Some of them do this because they think it's much easier to explain it this way, but some also do it because they view the patterns of this universe as entirely correlational and never causal. It's either they're stupid, misunderstood or affixed to certain type of understanding. While I can understand the 2nd, the 1st and the 3rd I cannot. It is irrational and must be clarified because it also leads to what I consider as immoral. Actually, it outrightly pisses me off, and I hate how these topics surfaces in this forum.

Other words for correlation are "goes along with" or "hangs out with". This hanging out may be tight (correlation ~ 1) or loose (correlation = .1)
I think this has to be handled for cause and effect on a case by case basis. Take the issue of F on the MBTI and females. Who tests more F, males or females or are they equal? If not equal look for cause and effect, but what? Does having F cause one to be more likely female? Does being female cause one to be more likely F?

See how different this is from feeling pain and taking aspirin. Those two are probably correlated. We could guess that having pain causes taking aspirin, but does taking aspirin cause us to have pain? Not sure I said this right and even if I did, what's the difference? I think there is a famous statement about this, some theorem, but it's not so famous that I remember what it is, lol.

 

[Zionoxis]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Define 'individual' from your perspective. As for stereotypes, I usually make them just for jokes. But many feminists like to think they are the same as a man. I cannot cope with this process. Each gender is different in its respect and the psychological wiring is also different. There are going to be common strengths and weaknesses among genders. For instance, due to different hormone levels, men on average have more upper body strength.

I am completely under the impression that women can be intellectuals and in fact, I have come to expect it out of women and ignore those who are not. But the simple fact of the matter is, with your monthly visit from mother nature, you have a slight emotional disadvantage men do not have to worry about. It is not a matter of inequality, but simply a matter of objectively pointing out what is, being mature in the conversation, and figuring out how dynamics will be established based on those strengths and weaknesses. It is much like saying introverts and extroverts are equal. They are different. They both can accomplish many different things, but they are not the same person.

An introvert attempting to act like an extrovert will fail socially (I have tried).

 

[snafupants]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I treat everyone the same when I first meet them and then differentiate my treatment based on their actions and words. This tends to put people off because they expect to be treated a certain a way based on race, gender, and societal perceptions of beauty/ugliness. I think stereotypes can become a self fulfilling prophecy in many cases.

Stereotypes can definitely conform and be informed by our prior opinions. Aw gawd, this is sounding like a lower-level Sociology course. Anyway, the arena in which folks find themselves probably influences their sense of anonymity, punishability and dimension of hiding abstraction. So it's maybe easier to call someone obese or ugly or dumb or whatever online than it is in the flesh, where there's a past and an awkward future to most invective or putdowns or whatever. This is sort of a double-edged sword in that anonymity allows for disinterested analysis; every one in a while, however, that analysis should be tinged with human considerations.

 

[Cognisant]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Both men and women are aware of the male/female stereotypes, so both men and women may choose to support, subvert, or embody the other stereotype, given that I believe it is an accurate statement to say we are all individuals potentially without relevance to gender.

 

[Minuend]

Å

Define 'individual' from your perspective. As for stereotypes, I usually make them just for jokes. But many feminists like to think they are the same as a man. I cannot cope with this process. Each gender is different in its respect and the psychological wiring is also different. There are going to be common strengths and weaknesses among genders. For instance, due to different hormone levels, men on average have more upper body strength.

I am completely under the impression that women can be intellectuals and in fact, I have come to expect it out of women and ignore those who are not. But the simple fact of the matter is, with your monthly visit from mother nature, you have a slight emotional disadvantage men do not have to worry about. It is not a matter of inequality, but simply a matter of objectively pointing out what is, being mature in the conversation, and figuring out how dynamics will be established based on those strengths and weaknesses. It is much like saying introverts and extroverts are equal. They are different. They both can accomplish many different things, but they are not the same person.

An introvert attempting to act like an extrovert will fail socially (I have tried).

Male hormonal cycle. http://myhormonesmademedoit.com/the-male-hormone-cycle/

Errrr, our monthly hormonal cycle doesn't usually affect women too much. But we do get a certain few who like to make a rucus about how big a deal it is. I, for one, notice no difference in emotional state. And even if I did- I'm not an animal I can control myself oO

 

[Words]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Other words for correlation are "goes along with" or "hangs out with". This hanging out may be tight (correlation ~ 1) or loose (correlation = .1)

statistics, right.

I think this has to be handled for cause and effect on a case by case basis. Take the issue of F on the MBTI and females. Who tests more F, males or females or are they equal? If not equal look for cause and effect, but what? Does having F cause one to be more likely female? Does being female cause one to be more likely F?

Not all females are F therefore, there is no causal relationship. "F or female" could be one of the factors that dictate "F or female" but I don't think this should be labeled as "cause." Only "the whole" is the cause. "The whole is more than the sum of its parts." [disregarding specifics such as physics.]

See how different this is from feeling pain and taking aspirin. Those two are probably correlated. We could guess that having pain causes taking aspirin, but does taking aspirin cause us to have pain? Not sure I said this right and even if I did, what's the difference? I think there is a famous statement about this, some theorem, but it's not so famous that I remember what it is, lol.

How does it make sense to interpret the scenario as taking aspirin cause us to have pain?

Define 'individual' from your perspective. As for stereotypes, I usually make them just for jokes. But many feminists like to think they are the same as a man. I cannot cope with this process. Each gender is different in its respect and the psychological wiring is also different. There are going to be common strengths and weaknesses among genders. For instance, due to different hormone levels, men on average have more upper body strength.

I am completely under the impression that women can be intellectuals and in fact, I have come to expect it out of women and ignore those who are not.

Do you look at females more as individuals or as females?

But the simple fact of the matter is, with your monthly visit from mother nature, you have a slight emotional disadvantage men do not have to worry about.

Who's "you"? Are you talking about every individual woman? Because that's bull. Instead, do you mean "a significant portion of a set of individuals"?

An introvert attempting to act like an extrovert will fail socially (I have tried).

Preferring introversion over extroversion =/= social incapability. Likewise, being extroverted doesn't mean a free pass to doing well socially. In addition, individuals are stimulated by their top two functions, which include both an introverted and an extroverted function. Oh, and I'm an introvert and I don't think I fail at all.

Here's to introvert type-supremacy:


Introvert

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Each person is a unique collection of moving parts with a unique skillset, beliefs, values, background, set of life experiences, genetic composition, etc., that can do many different things collectively depending on where and how they are used, what order they're in, etc. i.e. people are part of a system, amirite?

On that note, I must admit to unconscious racism and sexism that I wasn't even aware of until it was exposed at a university teaching symposium, i.e. I (and everyone else in the room) described people of different sexes and races differently even though they had the exact same skillset, employment history, and personality characteristics. I don't believe that anyone is truly free of unconscious discriminatory latent constructs.

I now make an effort to describe all people as if they were caucasian males, and the difference is definite and absolute.

 

[walfin]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I steretype any induvidual with bad spelling. Male or female.

 

[Cognisant]

Re: Å

Male hormonal cycle. http://myhormonesmademedoit.com/the-male-hormone-cycle/

Lol, a 24h cycle, what a great comeback

 

[BigApplePi]

men and women as individuals? Bayes Theorem

Not all females are F therefore, there is no causal relationship. "F or female" could be one of the factors that dictate "F or female" but I don't think this should be labeled as "cause." Only "the whole" is the cause. "The whole is more than the sum of its parts." [disregarding specifics such as physics.]

By "F" I meant the F (feeling) function of the MBTI. Suppose F (feeling) and T (thinking) are favored 50 percent each for the sake of argument in the general population. Now isn't it possible that many females can have something within them that causes F more than 50 percent? Then we could say that statistically females as a whole cause an F temperament likelihood over T, even though far from a certainty.

How does it make sense to interpret the scenario as taking aspirin cause us to have pain?

It doesn't. The pain causes many to take aspirin. This example is no good as it would have to be rephrased as "taking aspirin causes pain to get worse." This rarely happens.

"BAP: I think there is a famous statement about this, some theorem, but it's not so famous that I remember what it is, lol."

I went to bed and thought, "Bayes Theorem" but wasn't sure. So I looked it up. "it expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for evidence."

where P(A|B) = the probability of A given B (where B is not zero). I'm not sure how to word this to make it relevant. I'm just showing it as a possible explanation and leave it up to others if they want to pursue it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem

They give examples with a beetle and drug testing. Apparently these statistics give our intuition a hard time because of the absence of statistical testing.

We have prejudices I assume because they help us take action even though the decision is wrong. It's too hard to use this theorem to make the right decision quickly.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I steretype any induvidual with bad spelling. Male or female.

Me too. Anyone who can spel a word in many ways shows hidden signs of creativity.

 

[Orja]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

The stereotypes are based on prototypes which are unfortunately, innately human. Protoypes are the result of a very necessary cognitive function that allows us to process a huge amount of information efficiently. We are designed to pick out the extraordinary from the ordinary. It had always been essential to our survival. In modern life, if you see a bunch of people jumping around, waving their hands, and singing in a concert, it isn't a big deal, because you expect it. If this suddenly happened while in a public restroom, you'd probably flip the f**k out. We have our categories for things, and we need them. Gender is the very first thing we identify about a person (probably one reason why some sexual minorities suffer such extreme prejudice: it is downright upsetting to some people to have to modify or forgo this primary categorization). It stands to reason that many, many gender-related prototypes would escalate to stereotypes. Some people are able to stop themselves at prototypes and use reason. Others develop stereotypes and even prejudice regarding gender. Or else, adopt a rigid set of gender roles to which they feel all people must adhere. It is sad, it is petty, and as Fukyo and Cavallier said, it is incredibly lazy. It will never disappear. In fact, I doubt it will even become less frequent.

On a positive note, when you notice that a person has cognitively degraded to the point of stereotypic thinking, it is like a big neon sign that says, "I'm not worth your time and energy".

 

[Kairoh]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Delusions of Gender is an excellent book about this topic. It refutes a lot of popular beliefs about gender by citing HEAPS of reputable psychological studies, and I love love love that. The studies are so interesting, they're all so intuitive, it's unbelievable that people didn't realize these things before. It's such a refreshing testament to rational thinking.

Basically, when you hear some study about how "men perform better on these types of spatial reasoning tests as compared to women," or "women perform better on these emotional tests," the problem lies with how the test was constructed, not with the individuals. If you do something as simple as asking someone to bubble in their gender on a test, it immediately changes the way they approach that test. It's even more pronounced if you say something like "women usually do better on this section of the test" right before you ask the questions. Most people naturally conform to whatever preconceptions you have about them. Women will try harder on "emotional IQ" tests and then as a result they perform better, because that's what society expects of them. If you present a test in a completely unbiased light, there are no performance differences between males and females.

Even more interestingly, if you first have a female read a story that is written from the first person perspective of a male, and then have her complete a math assessment test, she will perform just as good (or better) than males who took the same test. And, if you have a white male read a first person story from the perspective a black male, and then you ask him about his athletic abilities, he will exaggerate his abilities much more than those who didn't read that story. Bottom line: We conform to whatever traits and stereotypes that society associates with our identity.

 

[Minuend]

Re: men and women as individuals? Bayes Theorem

By "F" I meant the F (feeling) function of the MBTI. Suppose F (feeling) and T (thinking) are favored 50 percent each for the sake of argument in the general population. Now isn't it possible that many females can have something within them that causes F more than 50 percent? Then we could say that statistically females as a whole cause an F temperament likelihood over T, even though far from a certainty.

I don't have time to respond to everything now, but this is very simplistic thinking.

Even the MBTI isn't that "simple". We have cognitive function. And not everyone is dom Fi or Te. And everyone has some form of Fi or Fe and Ti or Te. What we tend to show the most, is usually what we have been encoraged to use. That means there will be Ti doms leaning more on their Fe which will to most be mistyped, ecause most doesn't know shit about MBTI. They will also use this simplistic thinking where people are F or T. That's like saying "plants" or "meat" when there's a huge selection to choose from in those categories.

By your logic, you can just as easily say "isn't it possible that many males can have something within them that causes F more than 50 percent?"

Males are better at nurtiring than many think. They can be very affectionate, warm and considerate. Women can be rational, perceptive and reasonable.

Jumping to simplitic thinking will make you miss out on a lot of interesting induviduals. Or even if you meet them, you wont be able to see them. And such blindness is one of the more scary things in this world.

Few of us are perfect from jugding other people, but recognizing faulty thinking will make us mature a small step at a time.

 

[Reluctantly]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I think all women should be given dog collars with spikes and their name and home phone number engraved on the collar. That way if they get lost, there's a way to bring them home safely.

 

[Orja]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Basically, when you hear some study about how "men perform better on these types of spatial reasoning tests as compared to women," or "women perform better on these emotional tests," the problem lies with how the test was constructed, not with the individuals. If you do something as simple as asking someone to bubble in their gender on a test, it immediately changes the way they approach that test. It's even more pronounced if you say something like "women usually do better on this section of the test" right before you ask the questions. Most people naturally conform to whatever preconceptions you have about them. Women will try harder on "emotional IQ" tests and then as a result they perform better, because that's what society expects of them. If you present a test in a completely unbiased light, there are no performance differences between males and females.

Oh! I was reading about this a few months ago! This experiment has been repeated with race, age, and gender (and all mixed together) and it is really fun to see how people conform. It is a phenomenon that can be seen here as well. Now that the INTPs here are aware that we test as INTP and aware of why we test that way, we are more likely to seek INTP-like answers for all the other trivial, fun quizzes we come across. Especially in this environment. Because the only thing worse than being put into a defined group, is being the odd-man-out. What if someone pipes up and says "I don't think you're an INTP" and then you risk feeling like you don't belong anymore. Of course, sometimes we are comfortable being a part of the minority if there are ample fellows to form a comfortable-sized group. But if you are in a situation similar to those tests, where you aren't given any minority statistics, you are running the risk that you may be the only one to fail. That you may belong to too-small a minority. So in that sense, statistics do perpetuate stereotypes. However, as is the case with research, original data for the genders were obtained before the statistics were formed. There really are general differences between genders when we look at men and women in huge sample sizes. Some of the differences are surely the result of cultural gender roles, but even they are based on the natural tendencies of the majority of the reproducing population. Every culture has at least some gender roles. And nearly every culture allows for exceptions. Both the roles and the exceptions exist for a reason.

 

[Minuend]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

It's interesting though. Some men and women enjoy or at least prefer fulfilling their stereotypes,

I find that so bizarre!

I see individuals as minds. Sure some are tall, skinny, dark haired, wear glasses, are men but those traits doesn't tell me who that person is. What it believes, thinks and feels. How to interpret or predict its behaviour.

Putting ones identity in gender is to me like putting your identity in the fact that your (general your) favourite colour is blue. It doesn't tell me anything about you.

Well, claiming to have completely rid oneself of stereotypes is probably delusional, but this is far from a valid excuse for consciously treating statistical aggregates as something which applies to every object in that class. : P

The most baffling and appalling display of this type of collectivism that is noticeably prevalent however must be the "a member in that group did something wrong to me, therefore I will treat every member of that group as responsible"-type reasoning. Yuck.

Yeah. And I find it odd that some people search enlightenment in philosophy, but when it comes to treating men and women as individuals, they turn to very simple explanations. They seem to need to have that difference, feel it. Question it is for some reason dangerous.

I think the recent "XSFPs are retards" thread annoys me just as much though. If we're just going to use MBTI for the purposes of negative stereotyping then bugger it.

Yes, MBTI was never meant to be a tool for making one feel better about oneself by putting others down. It's like that saying; "You don't get taller by chopping other's heads off". It's rather about recognizing that different people have different priorities and different interests. We can't predict purely by it's type, but we can understand that it is different.

If one is relating to someone as an individual, it is best to recognize their individuality. Sometimes I have trouble with this on this board and talk to the topic rather than the individual. It is hard.

When you are in a debate, you don't really need to recognize individuality. I think most are more concerned about the topic in a debate.

I'll give you one. I have the impression the female correlates more highly with the F on MBTI than men do. So I'm tempted to lean on that as meaningful. That means if I learn a poster is female as you are, I just want to be more aware of feeling and thinking. My prejudice can be equal for males. If I learn a poster is probably male (how would I know?), I might tend to ignore non-overt feelings they have and run with their logic, etc. and then wind up in a bad place.

What are you trying to accomplish by doing that?

I forgot something. If one is talking about a group, then one has to take into account the interests of that group. How does one do that? Answer: one's own impression + talking to the group leader or representative.

You are not talking to a group, you are talking to me. And this bitch needs logic, so you better start flapping that up soon.

I think this has to be handled for cause and effect on a case by case basis. Take the issue of F on the MBTI and females. Who tests more F, males or females or are they equal?

There are no reliable statistics on that one. What one tend to see, are men and women putting more weight to lower functions as that is the way some demand them to be.

Define 'individual' from your perspective. As for stereotypes, I usually make them just for jokes. But many feminists like to think they are the same as a man.

Is that really what they are doing? Could it not be that you are misinterpreting their motives?

I cannot cope with this process. Each gender is different in its respect and the psychological wiring is also different. There are going to be common strengths and weaknesses among genders.

Give me an example of a feminine, mental trait a man can not have, or vice versa. Upper body strength doesn't really tell you anything about, like I said, what the person is thinking, feeling and living.

The stereotypes are based on prototypes which are unfortunately, innately human. Protoypes are the result of a very necessary cognitive function that allows us to process a huge amount of information efficiently. We are designed to pick out the extraordinary from the ordinary. It had always been essential to our survival. In modern life, if you see a bunch of people jumping around, waving their hands, and singing in a concert, it isn't a big deal, because you expect it. If this suddenly happened while in a public restroom, you'd probably flip the f**k out. We have our categories for things, and we need them. Gender is the very first thing we identify about a person (probably one reason why some sexual minorities suffer such extreme prejudice: it is downright upsetting to some people to have to modify or forgo this primary categorization). It stands to reason that many, many gender-related prototypes would escalate to stereotypes. Some people are able to stop themselves at prototypes and use reason. Others develop stereotypes and even prejudice regarding gender. Or else, adopt a rigid set of gender roles to which they feel all people must adhere. It is sad, it is petty, and as Fukyo and Cavallier said, it is incredibly lazy. It will never disappear. In fact, I doubt it will even become less frequent.

But shouldn't we start to expect more from people? How long can we hide behind our history to avoid making changes?

On a positive note, when you notice that a person has cognitively degraded to the point of stereotypic thinking, it is like a big neon sign that says, "I'm not worth your time and energy".

True dat.

Even more interestingly, if you first have a female read a story that is written from the first person perspective of a male, and then have her complete a math assessment test, she will perform just as good (or better) than males who took the same test. And, if you have a white male read a first person story from the perspective a black male, and then you ask him about his athletic abilities, he will exaggerate his abilities much more than those who didn't read that story. Bottom line: We conform to whatever traits and stereotypes that society associates with our identity.

When such small things make such huge impact, imagine what our society, friends, families does to our personality. Which probably helps answer Akuma's question.

 

[WARchitect]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I dont see them as individuals.

On trivial, day by day, superficial encounters(internet comunication too); I use judgement function. Simplifies everything for me, so I can focus on my thoughts.

I judge people based on looks, race, gender, political/ideological inclinations and age. Most of the time in this order.
And I have to say that I can predict much about their behavior, judging like this. For an example, right now I'm doing a mental list of members from this site that will reply my post in moderate (or extreme) agreement (or disagreement). I can even predict some of the contents of the replies.
(Now that I shared these last sentences with a bunch of INTPs I'm predicting that my initial predictions will not fulfill)

In order to see someone as an individual, I have to be really interested and make an eye to eye conversation (be a psychologist basically).

 

[crippli]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I dont see them as individuals.

On trivial, day by day, superficial encounters(internet comunication too); I use judgement function. Simplifies everything for me, so I can focus on my thoughts.

I judge people based on looks, race, gender, political/ideological inclinations and age. Most of the time in this order.
And I have to say that I can predict much about their behavior, judging like this. For an example, right now I'm doing a mental list of members from this site that will reply my post in moderate (or extreme) agreement (or disagreement). I can even predict some of the contents of the replies.
(Now that I shared these last sentences with a bunch of INTPs I'm predicting that my initial predictions will not fulfill)

In order to see someone as an individual, I have to be really interested and make an eye to eye conversation (be a psychologist basically).

You don't judge them based on health?

But I see what you say.
You probably also don't view a police officer as an individual, a foot soldier? a politician? There are concrete visual different ways to signal group belonging=uniform=group?

But home, naked in their bed. Can you then view them as an individual?

And just from curiosity. Where these questions what you predicted from me?

 

[snafupants]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Call me old-fashioned but I respect women to the precise degree that they dutifully stay in the kitchen.

 

[Puffy]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Isn't the XSFP thread what you can use Jung's ideas for? The same way one can use classification of women and men. It's a classical example that theories are never the problem, it's how you use them. I.e-guns -->> The human.

I don't consider one persons application of the theory as overly relevant for the theory. Indeed perhaps not even relevant for the person.

Ouch. I feel like my mind is gooing in loops in this thread.

Like How can I see women and men as individuals. Men and women are description of two groups. Is it possible to accomplish what is asked of me? Perhaps if the question was, "do you see people as wo(men) or as persons?" I do think that is a very different question, and perhaps not what is being asked. Can not one be both, even more. Man, woman and individual? Are there objections against that. Is it better if I view someone as all 3, or pick one?

Perhaps I see persons as points in a web, and the web is clustered with points here and there.

re: the XSFP, I'm just of the opinion that geniuses exist among the Se dominants. I don't think type is an indicator of intelligence. If his post was a standalone one then I would agree, but labelling them "retards" is really just a harsh re-phrasing of a view I have read many times on this forum. SFs are harshly dealt quite frequently. In my opinion it's just projection.

I agree how you use it is what is important. But if the theory is about classifying people then we have to be especially careful in not creating negative classifications.

I'm male, but I'm also an agnostic, an xxxx personality type (not sure which at the moment), British, English, middle classed, student, etc. etc.

Being male is one small facet of who I am, which I'm guessing you're saying to, and even then it is not a reliable indicator of anything personality wise. It's not even a reliable indicator of sexuality.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

You are not talking to a group, you are talking to me. And this bitch needs logic, so you better start flapping that up soon.

You want logic? I'll give you logic. How many people have you known in your life? Accidental, incidental, family, school, relatives, buddies, strangers on a train? They are all different ... at least most of them are ... to you are they not? Would you expect equal from all? Do you respect one and not the other? Do you expect something from one and not the other? Would you want something from one and not the other? These are all individuals if you see them that way. See them all the same and react to them all the same and you do yourself an injustice. And since when do you get off telling my fellow honored poster she's a bitch?

 

[crippli]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

re: the XSFP, I'm just of the opinion that geniuses exist among the Se dominants. I don't think type is an indicator of intelligence. If his post was a standalone one then I would agree, but labelling them "retards" is really just a harsh re-phrasing of a view I have read many times on this forum. SFs are harshly dealt quite frequently. In my opinion it's just projection.

I agree how you use it is what is important. But if the theory is about classifying people then we have to be especially careful in not creating negative classifications.

I'm male, but I'm also an agnostic, an xxxx personality type (not sure which at the moment), British, English, middle classed, student, etc. etc.

Being male is one small facet of who I am, which I'm guessing you're saying to, and even then it is not a reliable indicator of anything personality wise. It's not even a reliable indicator of sexuality.

I agree.

 

[WARchitect]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

You don't judge them based on health?

But I see what you say.
You probably also don't view a police officer as an individual, a foot soldier? a politician? There are concrete visual different ways to signal group belonging=uniform=group?

But home, naked in their bed. Can you then view them as an individual?

And just from curiosity. Where these questions what you predicted from me?

If its mental health, yes. But it falls on the "looks" category. If someone looks retarded, down syndrome, autism, etc... I will treat them according to their conditions.
Other than that, no.

No, I don't see them as individuals.
No health, uniforms/clothes, tags, titles or religion judgements. Maybe on a second look at this person.

If you are asking me to imagine someone "naked in their bed", I'm going to use all the information you gave me to do so. Its very superficial. I don't understand what you're trying to say with this.

Your questions were predicted? Yes and no. You tried to not fulfill my initial prediction.

re: the XSFP, I'm just of the opinion that geniuses exist among the Se dominants. I don't think type is an indicator of intelligence. If his post was a standalone one then I would agree, but labelling them "retards" is really just a harsh re-phrasing of a view I have read many times on this forum. SFs are harshly dealt quite frequently. In my opinion it's just projection.

I agree how you use it is what is important. But if the theory is about classifying people then we have to be especially careful in not creating negative classifications.

I'm male, but I'm also an agnostic, an xxxx personality type (not sure which at the moment), British, English, middle classed, student, etc. etc.

Being male is one small facet of who I am, which I'm guessing you're saying to, and even then it is not a reliable indicator of anything personality wise. It's not even a reliable indicator of sexuality.

I strongly believe in genes/DNA. And natural laws.
So for me there are no "negative classifications".

For me its like a game. Imagine you have to bet/predict something. For doing so you need your reliable sources of information (the more you have sources, the best you can predict).

Reliability? On your sexuality?
According to my sources, homossexuals are 10% of the population. This would be sufficient to predict your sexuality. But I also know that this source is tendentious, pro-homossexual.
If my prediction is wong, no problem. I'll still be most of the time right when betting on billions of males.

You are an english male student? I think you'll live some more years...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity

(But if you are an homossexual, a litle bit less)

Please, don't suicide after reading this just to prove me wrong! You are a great individual!

 

[crippli]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

If its mental health, yes. But it falls on the "looks" category. If someone looks retarded, down syndrome, autism, etc... I will treat them according to their conditions.
Other than that, no.

What if they look retarded, but are geniuses. Isn't it going to be embarrassing to be so mistaken?

If you are asking me to imagine someone "naked in their bed", I'm going to use all the information you gave me to do so. Its very superficial. I don't understand what you're trying to say with this.

Not imagine. Go find a naked person in their bed. Very often there will be a different personality then outside the bedroom(disclaimer-don't have proof, but consider this to be true). My idea was that outside the bedroom people tend to seek a group, in some way. While it's different with a person in a bedroom. Similarly. When someone is on the brink of death, are you alone, or individual, or..?

What is your definition of an individual?

You tried to not fulfill my initial prediction.

No, It was the latter prediction.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I don't like how the OP didn't mention specifics. What exactly is it that people say about men and women that is so infuriating?

I generally think of people as individuals, but there are differences between men and women. So it depends on what people say that determines if it's warranted or not...

Not everyone is exactly the same. Some distinctions are warranted.

 

[WARchitect]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

What if they look retarded, but are geniuses. Isn't it going to be embarrassing to be so mistaken?

Not imagine. Go find a naked person in their bed. Very often there will be a different personality then outside the bedroom(disclaimer-don't have proof, but consider this to be true). My idea was that outside the bedroom people tend to seek a group, in some way. While it's different with a person in a bedroom. Similarly. When someone is on the brink of death, are you alone, or individual, or..?

What is your definition of an individual?

No, It was the latter prediction.

I will not be mistaken. "Looks retarded but is genius"? I'm an INTP and I can recognize one.
I'm talking about classical mental disorders.

Of course I could be mistaken in lots of cases(not only mental health). But if I find myself in a "lots of mistakes" situation, I'll study more, find new sources of information and then try again the judgement game. Its a game that you accept losses.

Like I said in my first post. I have to be really interested in people to see them as individuals. If I'm in the presence of a naked person in the bed, its because I am interested in this person.
I cant be everybodys psychologist!
And if we start thinking about multiple-personalities(one in the bedroom, one in work environment, one inside the car, one in the wilderness,etc) then theres no sense in having personalities fora.
I dont get the brink of death question. Alone or individual? or...?

An individual = (x(DNA))² + 2(x(DNA)y(Environment)) + (y(Environment))²; where x and y are unknow coefficients for us humans, right now.

Yes, the latter prediction. I think I said that with other words.

In the end stereotypes are based on the reality of the average.
Like a bell curve graph. We, INTPs, want to be more precise and see all this graph. Some personalities just see the average.

But I consider dumb stereotyping funny. I laugh at those youtube comments "strange kitchen"...

 

[BigApplePi]

The Individual Defined

An individual = (x(DNA))² + 2(x(DNA)y(Environment)) + (y(Environment))²; where x and y are unknow coefficients for us humans, right now.

That's a good one. My definition:

An individual consists of body and mind. The body is well-defined. The mind radiates from this central body and is diffused throughout its environment. This diffusion is seen by others to the extent of received radiation. The body sees its own mind as a reflection of this radiation. Radiation by its own nature is FUZZY, less dense as its DISTANCE from the body increases. When one dies, an environmental remnant is left behind.

Reference:

Man's Nature

 

[Antediluvian]

Individuals of course. I knew a former female co-worker who was built like Shrek, pretty monstrous.

 

[eagor]

i believe that all humans are individuals, but some stereotypes are true and i really don't see the problem in it though as long as it doesn't cause hatred and such

 

[BigApplePi]

i believe that all humans are individuals

I agree with that. Two exceptions: Eurasians and westerners. Those two are distinct from each other and are not individuals.

 

[Ptah]

Gender/sex has nothing whatsoever to do with the individuality of a person.

 

[BigApplePi]

Gender/sex has nothing whatsoever to do with the individuality of a person.

If you are female, you might as well be male then?
If you are male, you might as well be female?
If you are neither, then you don't care?