Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Legendre

Regulars
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Legendre

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Hawaii
  • Real Name
    $tuart
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • School or University
    Hawaii Pacific University (alumnus)

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Mililani, Hawaii
  1. That's correct. If, in a double-blind study, I rate as an INTJ but am unknowingly given the results for an ESTJ and find them just as accurate, then human resources-types are probably mistaken in believing that this test tells them much about anyone's personality.
  2. Nobody likes my idea from Post #54 of this thread proposing a double-blind experiment to test the veracity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indictator?
  3. Thanks for the input, Hal, Liliriodendren, and Thales! My New Year's resolution is now to read Biological Basis. I mentioned this before in the evolutionary psychology thread on the bottom of this post, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the Dawkinsites' misuse of the term altruism, which they seem to use for any action by an organism that benefits other organisms. Matt Ridley observes that commercial transactions are "positive-sum games" in which all consensually participating parties profit, and then he calls this by a name coined by Robert L. Trivers -- "reciprocal altruism." W
  4. This thread is for the discussion of Bible verses. I don't only mean ones that espouse altruism and mysticism, but verses that are so creepy that they should even give pause to the Religious Right. I started this thread because I came across this website quoting certain Bible verses and charging that they "advocat[e] killing and rape." I thought, No way! He must be taking these passages out of context. Well, I checked out Numbers 31.15-18. It looks to me like that website evaluated those passages pretty accurately. Moses tells the Hebrews to kill the Midianites and to take their v
  5. Thanks for the help, everybody!! I still have a few questions. JMeganSnow writes, Is a proposition not a type of concept? DavidOdden writes, I thought that the concept of time was the result of an induction; that one derives the concept of time after first observing a sequence of events or actions. Isn't "time" derived from the concept of "actions"? One Thing (an Event) happens after Another Thing (another Event), and that's how we arrive at "time"? dondigitalia writes, Pardon the strangeness of this sentence, but your definition of "definition" is ve
  6. Thanks for the replies, Hal and Thales! Hal said, That's true. Richard Dawkins's explanation was a descriptive one. It's just that a lot of other people try to invoke his theory to argue for altruism. Thales wrote, That's a great observation; I wish it occurred to me before you pointed that out! When altruism-espousers say that Dawkins's theory proves that evolution favors altruism, they are begging the question. They presume that individual survival needs some kind of justification, but they never ask themselves whether reproduction needs a justification. People who
  7. Hey, I have ideas for two experiments that scientists could perform to the test the claims of evolutionary pscyhologists. Experiment #1 has to do with pre-rational behavior, and #2 can look for correlations between genetics and personality type. Experiment #1: Okay, first, here's the evolutionary explanation for why mammals get hungry. Actually, I should have used this example in my first post on this thread, since it's simpler than the one about physical beauty. Suppose there are two mammals of the same species. The first one, Pro-Hunger Mammal, has genes that give it sensations
  8. Okay, I believe I understand why objectivity requires that non-axiomatic concepts be "open-ended." Since we (well, rational people, anyway) are continually gathering more and more information about the concretes of material reality, we may find some concepts we previously formed inductively are insufficient and must be revised. For instance, a child may believe that all ocean-dwelling creatures with stream-lined bodies and finny appendages must be fish, while a mammal is a hairy creature that lives on land. When the child learns that whales are mammals, he or she then revises his or her
  9. After they hear about Richard Dawkins's "selfish gene" theory, many of my acquaintances tell me that, if it is true that ethics ("ought") can be derived from man's biological nature (what "is"), then the ultimate moral goal of a person should be to propagate his or her genes. That's actually the point of the book The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer. (Not surprisingly, this book whacks at many strawman representations of Objectivist epistemology. While Shermer claims to be a "former Objectivist," he makes it clear that he never understood the philosophy, given that his critique
  10. Thanks for the link! Those are good questions!! I only became interested in this subject a year or two ago after reading Survival of the Prettiest and Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue, so I have to admit I'm still a dilettante with this subject, and an evolutionary psychologist might say that I have a simplistic view of this school of thought. So far, I think that "evolutionary psychology" is more of a descriptive than prescriptive field. That's because evolutionary psychologists believe that everything that "is," in human society, is that way for some sound evolutionary re
  11. Hey Hal, thanks for the reply! This is a good point, and I'm kind of stuck on the sidelines with this one. One example I can give you of a culture having a different idea of "beauty" is the idea that an Ancient Hawaiian queen was beautiful if she were fat. That contadicts Western standards. In Survival of the Prettiest, Nancy Etcoff has a rebuttal to this, but I don't know if I completely agree with her. Anyhow, evolutionary psychologists reply that there are some transcultural beauty standards. They say that in experiments conducted in both the East and West, there is a corr
  12. I believe that evolutionary psychologists do have some good points; it's just that a number of them go overboard in proclaiming that people are "meat machines" without free will, whose personality traits are "genetically programmed." I notice that a particularly egregious fallacy of evolutionary psychologists like Jared Diamond and Edward O. Wilson is that they cannot tell the differences between human beings and chimpanzees. Diamond and Wilson quite correctly note a number of behavioral similarites between chimps and humans. But then this leads them to ignore certain important difference
  13. I have taken this test several times since 1998, and I have scored alternately as an INTJ, INTP, and INFJ. With respect to Ayn Rand being classified as an INTJ by Jung typology psychologist David R. Keirsey, Jr. (whose "Keirsey Temperament Sorter" was alluded to in the 1999 remake of The Haunting), I have not come across any evidence of Ayn Rand taking the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. I suspect that what really happened is just that Dr. Keirsey liked Ayn Rand's books and thought she and her protagonists were good examples of "NT Rationals," hence his references to Miss Rand on his websit
  14. softwareNerd sure is right about the cost of living! It may be true that a lot of the high cost of living in Hawaii can be attributed to the fact that it is an archipelago, but a number of regulations make it even more expensive to live here than it otherwise would be. For example, a federal law called the Jones Act, which was enacted as a "temporary" measure during World War II, forbids foreign ships from sailing from one U.S. port to another. The law requires that the only vessels that may make trips between U.S. ports are those that are built entirely in the United States and are mann
  15. Hey, you're going to the University of Hawai'i at Manoa? I can't tell you how awesome that is!!
×
×
  • Create New...