On Fascism: A dialogue by Boba
Shimrin: Esoteric National socialism is some real cringe
Boba: The writings of Esoteric philosophers like Otto Weininger were adopted by the Nazis to fit their movement
Shimrin: You see the same a lot today with brainlet radical anti-capitalists. The esoteric being forced into a political narrative of modernity makes no sense at all.
Boba: Damn Otto Weininger seemed like a real incel asshole, reading his writings now. There’s a weird post-war esoteric neo-fascist group of writers, especially in Italy.
Shimrin: Well Evola continued his work post-war so it makes sense
Boba: Thoughts on Savitri Devi? Definitely a few esoteric Naz-bol simps in here
Shimrin: Peak schizo tier. That one book about Hitler being an avatar of Vishnu sounds pretty entertaining.
Lethal: Was it substantially different from Jung's take? The sad thing about it is if those Hindu Indians lived in the nazi state during the 1930-40s they would have been gassed
Boba: This feels like a nonsequitur, but I can't put my finger on why
Lethal: Huh?
Boba: (this is not an attempt to agree with Devi) Hitler being the avatar of Vishnu wouldn't preclude the genocide of Indians by his hand
Lethal: Real Hitler would though. So what use is it naming your god after him? It honestly reminds me of one those meme ideologies that r/politicalcompass or r/Jreg people make
Boba: But it's not naming, it's incarnation
Al: Hindu deities aren’t that black/white
Lethal: Like it’s interesting to read about but I reckon a lot of those Hindu followers of esoteric fascism probably had psychotic breaks
Boba: Why do you assume that? 1. that's not actual the nazi criteria 2. I don't think that's a correct representation of Devi's appearance
Lethal: Lol who cares she belonged in a loony bin anyway
Boba: I'm not arguing the rightness of her points, I'm saying this takes don't make sense. "They're bad so you should believe anything I assert about them" is literally one of the most destructive wokeist talking points
Lethal: I just think you have to have something wrong with your brain to still believe in fascism after it’s defeat and witnessing its horrors. I wasn’t saying don’t read them. I was just saying they were probably schizophrenic or something.
Boba: Doesn't this as easily apply to Capitalism and Communism?
Lethal: Delusional. Delusions of grandeur
Boba: Hell, we're on an Accelerationist Discord
Lethal: Yeah but you guys don’t want death camps. we’re all just interested in knowledge. and we're curious
Shimrin: -to Lethal- I think this is still kind of a common weakness in nowadays discussion, in a sense that the backyards of Capitalism are ignored while using a very smug rhetoric towards past states.
Lethal: -to Shimrin- I critique capitalism and communism on here a lot, I despise tankies and neoliberalism so I don’t know why you’re arguing that.
Boba: -turns to Lethal- Nick Land doesn't even maintain the pretense of respect for human life
Lethal: Meh, he’s a provocateur, probably a nice guy in real life. Most of what you see from him is acting but I find it interesting. Like he’s not extreme. He doesn’t ‘heil Hitler’ or whatever
Boba: You agree with characterization of him, but don't think that's extreme? You need to judge people and ideologies by more than "do they like Hitler"
Lethal: It’s beautiful prose and fiction. That’s not a very good argument haha
Lethal: Atrocities can be full of poetry and art. I don't get your pointAS
Marcel: muh Italian fascism is different from National Socialism. sorry I had to say it !
Lethal: If anyone has any kind of sense or rationality they would denounce Hitler. If they cannot do this don’t listen to them
Marcel: whats your opinion on Mussolini tho
Boba: -towards Lethal- That's a heuristic, yes. but denouncing Hitler doesn't mean you're a saint
Lethal: He’s (Mussolini) a silly bum. Mussolini looks like a bum
Marcel: no antisemitism in his writings, he only started acting bad to jews once italy became a german puppet state
Boba: "Land doesn't respect human life and will gleefully sacrifice it for a Higher Purpose" but that's not extreme b/c he "definitely dislikes hitler" Yes, this is a bad assessment Lethal & not very nuanced
Boba: -towards Lethal- I never said it makes a saint, i just said it makes me coherent
Marcel: there is no such thing as the human. humanism is cringe
Lethal: You defend the weirdest angles Shimrin. you’re literally arguing with me for saying Hitler should not be accepted
Marcel: your reaction against hitler comes from the fact that you are disgusted by him because of the fact that ww2 is founding mythology for our culture
Lethal: I feel like you’re just being devils advocate for the point of it. OMG double standards to critique Nazis, that makes you woke!!
Boba: Your point re Land implies strongly that one can advocate radically dehumanizing beliefs but that's fine as long as they nominally disavow Hitler
Lethal: I don’t advocate that, I like what Land theorises about time, and he’s funny to listen to for memes
Marcel: Hitler was retarded when it came to jews and he was a bumbling idiot sure; but he shouldnt become anthropomorphized satan
Boba: -to Lethal- I'm actually not. It's important to have coherent critiques even if the subject is detestable. Don't leave yourself open to easy critique through sloppy reasoning
Lethal: -to Boba- That is a retarded argument
Marcel: No one cares about the people Kim Jong Un killed, because Kim Jong Un isnt part of our mythologized past; or Pol Pot or capitalism. its like Hitler has that x-factor that makes him trillion times more evil than any other tyrant
The Dinky: -to Marcel- I'm a Jew; quite a lot of people like me, as well as family members, were killed by his ideology; I think I should consider him (and his equivocators) "anthropomorphized Satan", yes.
Shimrin: It is a mistake to think ideologies that commit atrocities are internally inconsistent
Marcel: Why is it not okay to say fascism bad? Without someone getting triggered? Like, it's dangerous in the long term to assume "everything I dislike is Literally Fascism"
Lethal: Because it hurts your edgy, incoherent beliefs
Boba: Lol, here comes the personal attacks
Lethal: But I don’t say that. In fact I hate guys who operate like that, i.e Jason Stanley. What I’m saying is Woke philosophy is bad, communism is bad, capitalism is bad and fascism is bad.
The Dinky: Well, nobody's disputing that Fascism is bad.
Boba: Many people dispute this, IRL and sometimes here
The Dinky: When here? I haven't ever seen it.
Boba: "These people are fascists, don't bother thinking through my critiques of them"
-toward Lethal- Sure all those things are bad, but how and what manner we make those points matter a lot. Like, it's dangerous in the long term to assume "everything I dislike is Literally Fascism"
Marcel: The thing you have to ask yourself first; is "Wtf is Fascism?" I mean autocracies are historically the norm. What makes 20th century iteration of it worse? people rarely employ the same nuance when critiquing fascism than when critiquing other systems. its like kneejerk reaction to their historical conceptions.
Lethal: There’s this dumb right wing position and false equivalency, where it’s like if you criticise fascism automatically you are labelled ‘liberal antifa’. Why is it controversial to criticise fascism?
Boba: Do you really think that's happening here?
Marcel: I'm not saying you're not allowed to do it. But do it in a way thats smarter than: "Oh no I saw something on history channel !!!"
Lethal: Look back to what you said earlier about how it's dangerous for me to assume or classify in suspicion, in the long term, that something is fascist
Boba: I'm saying "be coherent in your criticism"
Shimrin: I agree with that statement, Boba. I think the Orwell fascism quote is good
Marcel: what is your systemic critique of fascism? thats my question
Shimrin: If your desire is to fight fascism, you can't pollute the anti-fascist discourse with easily-refuted bad takes... "Oh questioning my questionable takes? Must be a fascist sympathizer" fails at the population level
Lethal: Fascism manipulates and indoctrinates mass hoards of the population, it creates a collective enemy who will be imprisoned, tortured and murdered in order to purify race eugenics. Fascism constantly strives for ideological purification, it’s absolutely toxic. Individual autonomy doesn’t exist even for those who are considered ‘aryan-pure’. You have to do all activities in indoctrinated youth groups, schooling and education are manipulated, secret police forces are corrupt and barbarous. I mean I don’t need to expand, the dangers of fascism are self-evident and you are being bad faith if you disagree.
Shimrin: I've seen Land refer to fascism as practical socialism more than once, I think that's something to note
Boba: Yeah. I don't get this tendency to assume Land just has 'harmless' views underneath it all
Lethal: He's a boomer. He is going senile.
Boba: ....
Marcel: -towards Shimrin- alot to unpack. I sadly cannot claim to have read Gentile, but I saw some youtube videos explaining his political philosophy. The race thing isnt present(in italian fascism) there so I will focus on the real point you made: Individual automonomy
Lethal: Watch this JBP video -Lethal gives Marcel a link to the video-
Boba: "just read the articles!!" libspeak
Lethal: We don’t need to debate fascism though, as I’ve said it’s already self-evident of how destructive it is. Debate other things.
Marcel: your conception of the individual is on of liberalism where the individual is always in opposition to the state
Lethal: Waste of time debating fascism like wow
Marcel: Thats what I mean; you never use the word self-evident when critiquing communism and capitalism
Lethal: Do not say for one fucking second to me that you would have more freedom under a fascist state than a liberal one
Boba: We're pointing to Land indicating fascist views and you're swatting them down for no discernible reason
Lethal: I’m not a Landian in any sense... Nor do I defend him. He says some idiotic stuff. But he doesn’t organise propaganda political groups
Boba: I don't get how that is a prereq for anything
Lethal: And anyway if I were to call land a fascist you would just respond like ‘’see i told you, you’re just like liberal Antifa you label anyone a fascist’’
Boba: actual neoliberalism hasn't been tried, you know
Marcel: What freedoms? You mean rights? Is that your measure of freedom? Is private property freedom or is public property freedom? Every right is in opposition to another right. There is no objective freedom you could attain. There is only law and those who enforce it. Real freedom is not matter of rights but of responsibilities
Lethal: I'm not debating with you cause you don’t realise the privilege you have to not live in 1930s Germany
Marcel: It is delegated authority my friend
Lethal: You come off as completely disconnected from reality
Boba: -sighing- This is why it's important to have defensible takes
Marcel: Why is it annoying if I critique your conception of a presocietal individual and you're privileging of rights as the ultimate gauge of human flourishing?
Boba: If one's antifascist rhetoric can get BTFO by basic questions, then its not very good antifascist rhetoric
Marcel: Individual autonomy as you conceive it goes against any notions of cultural heritage. People need an infrastructure(a state) in which they can realize their potentials. That is freedom. Not going to the shopping mall.
Boba: In fact, it's good fascist rhetoric if the people attacking the Big Bad Ideology get so easily BTFO by simple refutations. This is a point I picked up from Briahna Joy Gray, who drove this point home in American politics (i.e. "lazy criticisms of the GOP are counterproductive")
Marcel: Fascism is a very optimistic political philosophy since it states that the individual and the state are not in opposition but mutually beneficial for one and another. It differenciates itself from Marxism, in that it preaches not class conflict but rather class collaboration.
Boba: Summaries of fascism that miss this point are bad
Marcel: So gassing Jews has nothing to do with fascism but rather with the neuroses of some austrian dude
Boba: Eh. Hard disagree
Marcel: interested in your take
Boba: The Shoah is directly related to the fascist impulse to find and purge an internal enemy (just as the attacks on Poland are motivated by the need for an external enemy and a preoccupation with 'living space')
Boba: I would quote mr Zizek roughly here in a way that russian communism makes the enemies of the state to forcefully admit that they are wrong/sinners while fascism just throws them out no questions asked. He said it was very much a defining character in those ideologies
Boba: The Shoah also intersected with the fascist preoccupation with 'national health' and parasitism
Shimrin: Over here the definitions we received in school of fascism and communism were as follows, “white people are superior in society” and “the state owns everything” respectively.
Marcel: idk if finding an internal enemy is in line with the idea of class collaboration.... but the thing with external enemies is true. although I will defend this on the basis of the sad truth that we call geopolitics
Boba: If there is a portion of the nation that doesn't fit in with the 'national body' (I'm referring to fascist corporatism here) it must be dealt with through dispossession and expulsion or extermination.
Marcel: that sounds like what a police force does lol. not uniquely fascist
Boba: There are instances where this isn't race-based (take the Integralists in Brazil), but there is still the sense of "these communities constitute the Body-State, and those communities* constitute what harms the Body-State.
Shimrin: Also sounds like psychiatry
Boba: The rhetoric of 'we are a body and we must take extreme measures to ensure our health' is all over fascism. Yeah the actual force is applied by police forces and the like, but that impulse isn't coming from the police
Marcel: a state is gonna do this; ideology only changes what makes you its enemy. sorry but Carl Schmitt is correct
Boba: I don't see the refutation that this is a characteristic of fascism. I'm saying this is NOT exclusively fascist. When striving for internal legitimacy fascism tends to become obsessed with internal and external enemies. The obsessive demonization and purge of Jews is strongly related to this
Marcel: ah I see. fair point
Shimrin: also Gypsies, Poles, Communists, Freemasons
Marcel: that really shows that you need a strong religion or vision for the state, so it can justify itself by affirmation and not negation... and fascism lacked in that area. yeah thats a critique thats good
Shimrin: IMO this is another requirement for fascism.... And why it's hard for me to consider China fascist
Marcel: yeah confucianism is just too soulless.
Shimrin: Nazi rhetoric was obsessed with the spirit of the nation and race
Marcel: that point explains the mistakes of the 20th century very well
Shimrin: Couching their politics in metaphysics
Marcel: that explains why prussia was more civilized than third reich. They had a better vision
Shimrin: Thing is, I don't think every instance of couching politics in metaphysics is bad, but I struggle to articulate what's good and what's bad
Marcel: whereas nazism emerges from the cesspool of the weimar republic where everything is deranged and desacralized. it comes in the age of science. I like this lense
Shimrin: I don't think it's accurate to call Nazism desacralized. It was twisted and pathological, but it was hardly atheist
Marcel: youtuber charlemagne made a video on that. hitler wasnt your catholic he saw himself as a man of science.. Himmler was different. Adorno raises the point how nazism embodies the enlightenment.. And I partially agree
Shimrin: "hitler wasnt your catholic he saw himself as a man of science" this feels reductive for a figure who leveraged charisma the way he did
Boba: Hitler admired certain religions, like Islam and Shinto
Marcel: sure it was a mythologized idea of a German future. but it was ultimately vapid I believe. -towards Lethal- I was not defending the Holocaust or other atrocities within the 20th century. I only explained and now overlooked way of conceiving the relationship between the state and the individual. And If you have rebuttals, to these ideas I welcome you to give them to us. Peace. Blessings to you
Boba: and by ignoring nuance it's harder to recognize when the forces are coalescing again in a similar manner
Marcel: thats not the way I would frame it; I feel you have to extract the good bits from the theory and then explain how such a cogent theory could produce bad results and then rework the framework. Thats how I look at fascism
Boba: I don't disagree with most of this, but I often don't frame it this way for reasons
Marcel: yeah I dont wanna get punched in the face either.
Wattie: -butts in- wow what a profound conversation
Marcel: look when it comes to these things is the reason why force is sometimes necessary
Boba: Don't you care about human life?
Marcel: Human life is overrated. Humanism was a ploy by the bourgeoise to get people to manufacture technology
Boba: Man is the intermediary between creatures, that he is the familiar of the gods above him as he is the lord of the beings beneath him; that, by the acuteness of his senses, the inquiry of his reason and the light of his intelligence, he is the interpreter of nature, set midway between the timeless unchanging and the flux of time; the living union
Marcel: Yeah but that is not the man of humanism. The man of humanism is the utilitarian deworlded individual on his quest to maximize happiness points. Humanism assumes we are all like that, and all the same. Under it's purview we cease to be qualitatively real and become a mere quantitative mass, meant to be fed, satiated and kept alive. Our particular lives get brushed up into a fake notion of "human life". Even though actual human life always creates something external to itself, be that God, or a set of ideals to strive for, so it is, if we wanna be so Nietzschean, always on the way to depart from the human, a fact which humanism denies. I don't wanna be a human, I wanna be a person. I wanna be an event. If someone asks you who your friends and loved ones are, human is the last word you are going to use to describe them, for you know it to be an insult to them, for only strangers we call humans, not people that are part of our lives.
Shim: Which humanism are we talking about?
Boba: Good question. Context tells me 'contemporary secular humanism, as in UU'
Shim: Human rights exist. They might not be a Universal.
Al: I’m skeptical but I’m glad overall humans think they do
-they all laughed-
Boba: I mean, it’s probably typical matter of... discourse relevance? Like Renaissance humanism doesn’t matter much at the moment, nor does negarastani humanism vs landian antihumanism to people who aren’t already reading them.
Shim: I'm not fluent with the concept yet, but all those senses of the term are descended from an understanding distinct from something like Vician humanism, which concerns the extent to which humans can understand God and the role of the human intellect in the universe
Boba: There’s probably a historical continuity sure. But the humanism of a Petrarch which was an christian antischolsticism that actually has a lot in common with contemporary evangelicalism would be anathema to modern secular humanists.
Vicos, Christian humanism which allows you to use your god given reason to read the Bible outside outside the scholastic tradition, and the utilitarian humanism mentioned above.
Shim: It smells like the "christian values without christ" issue
Al: I'm curious what the argument against the existence of fundamental human rights is
Shim: What's the argument FOR it?
Snek: Aristotle
Shim: Aristotle didn’t argue for rights. Cicero was approximately the earliest
Wattie: Marcel was correct, you guys are libs actually. The insistence that everyone is accusing you of being on is some kind of reflexive attack from your interior. Also, Aristotle actually does argue for rights. The citizen of the city-state is a categorically distinct bureaucratically conceived entity
Shim: And not all humans are citizens of city states?
Marcel: Only the men where citizens i believe
Wattie: No, prior to this dissemination of this philosophical truism nearly every community on the planet didn't have a word for humans outside of their own community, the words were synonymous
Snek: They had names
Wattie: I know its hard to believe that history actually happened, as a liberal, but you can't expect everyone to have had this meta-language of literate categorical discourse
Snek: Who is the liberal
Shim: So your claim is that Aristotle argued for human rights by virtue of the citizen of the polis having rights in spite of it being qua citizen of the polis not qua human? Seems to me you’re the one anachronistically reading modern discourse into the ancient Greeks. But what do I know I’m just a liberal
Wattie: Yes, that's basically correct. I can't be in the polis. I'm not claiming that he "argued" for human rights I'm saying that the concept derives from his WORK. The idea that they appear one day is as wrong as believing that they have always been eternal
Boba: -to Wattie- Marcel went south when he tried to blame nazi atrocities on their neurosis, not their ideology - this attempt to construct an artificial distinction between ideas and emotions is common - and is something that I've seen Lethal do as well (in regards to human rights). Hence, when Marcel made the mistake, Lethal couldn't call it out properly (because that would involve him comprimising his own ego defenses) and therefore got defensive and frustrated.
Wattie: this is literally enlightenment liberalism, eternal identity, noble savagery, the fundamentally rational nature of man. this is how you get human rights.
And for the record I'm not against enforcing abstractions like this as such, like treating people humanely whatever, but that's the point is that it must be enforced, the idea that you're born with it is too easily exposed as fraudulent
Shim: -to Wattie- Yes, I roughly agree with this position. To me a large portion of the issue with what is wrong with rightspeak is that it neglects to address that in the absence of enforcement the right itself is meaningless. Although perhaps it is an issue of history, maybe it was contained in the concept at one point in its development but no longer is. (The connection between rights and responsibilities has become similarly untethered).
Boba: I've noticed that people with strong ideologies often want to believe that being a good person is predicated on having the correct ideas, rather performing the correct actions. They want their opinions to do the heavy lifting of their praxis.
Wattie: Yes but its hard to find fault in them, other than disdaining their lack of creativity or expecting a level of agency that is unreasonable. This is why my worm-can opening with bringing in Aristotle was probably jumping the gun, because this problem of abstraction is baked into the cake of literacy and subjectivity
Snek: in an age where words are violence many don't think the two are distinct
Boba: -to Snek- in a certain sense this is true. We're so... "succesful"?... as a civ that physical violence has been mostly regulated to where a lot of the violence (some) people experience is linguistic. However, it's important to remember that a lot of physical violence goes into creating the conditions where words can become violent..
Snek: words are also the primary cataclyst to set of other forms of violence. If you get the right tweet viral, you can have armies of people going after the heads of your enemies
Snek: Needs to be noted that outside of exceptions people won't literally go after the heads, but taking away someone's current source of income and their ability to find new employment alongside the social shaming and harassment are as close to a death shot as regular people will receive in first world western countries
Wattie: The introduction of coinage, which occurred around the end of the 7th century BCE, provided a crucial stimulus for the advent of Greek philosophy, in which a universal substance is (like money) transformed from and into everything else..... That would be the core of the argument, rights are reifications rather than dramatizations or performances, and thus have no stakes outside of a bureaucratic enforcement which can only be varying levels of stifling
Boba: In another time and place where people didn't over-intellectualize things so much - it would make sense to talk about rights - but nowadays it's overwhelmingly likely to be a cope for real ethical action. You fail to explain why and how coinage was introduced. What about the other countries that also has coinage introduced to them? There is no where else like Greek philosophy in the world
Snek: Human right and right are not necessarily the same concept It’s all contingent upon definition. In ancient Rome if you were a citizen you had a right to your house no matter your Amount of debt i.e. your property. You couldn’t lose it. The Nazis tried and implementing this right again.
Wattie: You couldn't sell it either.
Snek: Really? yeah i think that's right. they had this idea of Terminus (which means limit, etc)
Wattie: Read The Ancient City by Coulanges. I only read some of it a couple years ago.
-Wattie gets his book, and turns to a passage in the book to recite to Snek-
"In Roman religion, Terminus was the god who protected boundary markers; his name was the Latin word for such a marker. Sacrifices were performed to sanctify each boundary stone, and landowners celebrated a festival called the "Terminalia" in Terminus' honor each year on February 23.
Snek: Ah, so family property is basically sacred.
Wattie: Yeah
Snek: At least for the original Romans. That book inspired Evola right?
Marcel: Yep. Women will never understand this btw. They only want to be quirky: no originality whatsoever.
Boba: Err this chat is getting random.
Shim: You are welcome to DM each other about this topic.
Marcel: You're right. It's not worthy for this channel.
Boba: I'm actually amazed that the chat can get this meta-textual
Snek: Our meta chatting on this drama pales in comparison to teenage girls and their drama.
Snek: This is interesting. Makes me think that teenage-girl discourse is focused principally on emotion and is therefore very inwards looking and hence meta-textual ("she said he said he thought etc"). Whereas male discourse is focused principally on ideas/facts, is outwards looking and hence avoids meta-textuality.
This may be one area where gender segregation is a bad thing - since the best thinking is one that can encompass both the emotional and ideological valences of things.
Boba: I think emotion is always heavily involved, even when it comes to reasoning.
Snek: Safe spaces as a concept have their use. Obviously excess of either the masculine or the feminine here is flawed. If you can never tell someone they're completely wrong and a moron you won't make much progress, but if all discussion is focused on dismantling opposing views swiftly, you'll also eventually hit a ceiling in your intellectual progress.
Universities nowadays mostly bastardize the feminine approach, but in lots of discussions I see between men it's all ego and they may benefit from a correct iteration of this approach. Nothing new of course, this is what Jung and many others have said before.
Boba: Jung rules and this all tracks.
Shim: As a guy that has always hated the confrontational approach I struggle with the gender based interpretation.
Snek: being at a liberal arts university with more than 80% of students being female made me think that there are two ways in which to achieve intellectual progress - war, where your aim is to destroy your opponent. If you're looking to discredit your opponent as wrong no matter what while debating, this may push you to the limits of your capabilities of seeking the flaws in their arguments. This is the masculine, confrontational approach. There is a reason war is the prompt for many great inventions to be developed. Then there is peace, in which your aim is to collaborate with the other. This means you're less likely to misinterpret what they say for the sake of owning them even if it is not factually true. By giving the other acceptance to express themselves and make errors, allow for vulnerability, accept new paradigms, you will also gather new insight. After war, when you combine your knowledge with previous opponents for the sake of collaboration, new inventions will also be made.
Shim: I think the enlightened view of conflict is that it sharpens you and skills for the 'ultimate struggle'. Defeating your opponent is can provide some satisfactions, but I would have preferred JBP (or anyone else I talk to) hold me to account for my weaknesses and flaws than to admit defeat. Self-improvement is more important than victory (I don't devalue victory, but preparing oneself for future struggles should take primacy)
Snek: There is not enough ego in current universities. There are no debates, no clashes of power, it's all mutual circlejerking. After 2 years of uni we finally had a real debate in a class, and I just wiped the floor with everyone and they were in awe because I could employ basic disagreeable logic. Felt addicting to be in a debate. It's a joke that you can go without real confrontations in your time at university
Shim: As a guy that has always hated the confrontational approach I struggle with the gender based interpretation.
Snek: I haven't done the necessary reading to completely detail the nuance of this but just because this is a classically male archetype/pattern doesn't mean all men will embody exactly this. Many ways to explain this like childhood exposure, typology (don't know if you're familiar with MBTI for example)
Shim: Yes I am familiar with that. It is typically misunderstood, but it is also kinda made up
Wattie: There is little substance to 99% of debates. any debate worth having is with people who don't usually debate. Anyone sensible and smart has already sought out their contradictions and blind spots, and is always changing. Imagine having a 'position'
Boba: I often use the phrase "I'm not into "isms""
Shim: One should be willing to constantly revise their position and admit its weaknesses (avoiding the trap of egoistic investment into a certain worldview), but arguing with someone who can't even provisionally hold a position is worse than useless
Wattie: Anyone sensible and smart has already sought out their contradictions and blind spots, and is always changing
Boba: IMO anyone sensible knows they have blindspots and invites others to point them out
Snek: -to Shim- there are as many issues as there are upsides to typology but I appreciate it for the potential to explain with nuance how gender norms may have come about to exist through cognition but there are outliers that will challenge the classical embodiments without being "wrong" or deranged.
Shim: MBTI was valuable to me in a vulnerable time of my life.
Snek: Great to hear. I think just the sensing/intuition distinction is worth so much. I've met a great many young peers unsure of themselves and why they struggle to connect with their peers, and the reason why not merely being "they're stoopid" or "you're fucked up and it's your fault you're alone"
Boba: -out of nowhere- Another way to get (angry) people off their balance is to say “I can believe whatever you want me to believe”. That really freaks people out.
Snek: There is still a lot of things I don't get about introversion and extroversion. I think it may have value but unless you know about cognitive functions it's just impossible to ever straight-facedly call oneself introverted or extroverted (at least for people with depth), as if it means you are always either shy or social
Shim: Don't force humans to serve labels and taxonomies.
Reject or revise the taxonomy if it's not useful.
Snek: That's why I chose to neglect it for now, I can't apply it reliably and there are too many questions with it
Boba: How do you spell schism without ism?
I mean, it’s never going to be reliable because it isn’t really based on anything. When it’s useful to you it’s useful to you, but chuck it in the can if it’s not.
Snek: There is a point of barely knowing about typology where the basic concepts can change your life and a very wide range of being too much into it to just benefit of the basics but not well-versed enough to the point that the additional "info" is true or worthwhile. Jung himself types himself wrong.
There was a neuroscientist that showed you can tell someone's type based off their brain waves and patterns. More research needs to be done into this, it's the only viable angle to make it more than basic bitch astrology but for guys
Boba: Even if you’re into jung the mbti is only really loosely related to it. I remember reading psychological types and thinking it sounded nothing like the mbti types.
Snek: Yeah that's why I say "typology", myers briggs is just the pop version of it. The biggest site doesn't even mention cognitive functions
Shim: That was a long time ago though. Any typology of something as complex as human behaviour and cognition will always be inadequate.
Snek: Myers briggs as "personality test" is already a tell it's shit. Being introverted is not a personality trait. The model seeks to describe cognition. That may have some overlap with personality traits but you can't type someone based on if they're agreeable or disagreeable.
Shim: I mean, the biggest error of mbti interpretation even taking it at its word is it does not recognise the functions as being tendencies.
Snek: imagine determining introversion or extroversion on your test by asking "aRe yOu tHe lIfE oF tHe pArTy?"
Boba: MBTI isn't perfect, but I thought it had an ok definition of those terms
Snek: Boba, I'm talking about the 16personalities test. Yes this is one of the walls for which there are no satisyfing explanations. Everyone has all functions, but the way in which they use them is different. Which is insanely complex when you get into the details.
The Judging/Perceiving dichotomy isn't from Jung and fairly nonsensical too
Shim: Agreed. Although I dont think Jung is all that tbh. Once upon a time.
Comments
Post a Comment