Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
pantodragon

Are you a “type” or a unique individual?

25 posts in this topic

A frequent accusation leveled at me on these forums when I have a go at scientists and academics, is that I am tarring them all with the same brush or making “sweeping generalizations” about them. I am told that they are not “types” at all, but are unique individuals who cannot be, as it were, “type-cast”. So, for example, when I rant about the idiocy of one particular psychologist and then generalize the idiocy to all psychologists, to all academics, in fact, I am criticized, as I said, for tarring all psychologists/academics with the same brush which, I am told, is nonsense. Oh yeah? Consider the following, then…..

Consider the internet. Consider the practices of the likes of google and other “data harvesters” when they gather information about you as you browse the internet. This information is used to draw up a profile of you such as your gender, age, likely occupation, social class, personality type and so on and so forth. Your profile is then used, amongst other things, to more accurately target advertising. (Post code profiling is also used in this way and for this purpose.)

Of course, the analysers, the software that sifts the data and compiles your profile, can only work if people ARE all “types”. This software, we are told, is “powerful”, but that’s a lie. It’s actually extremely crude. And the very reason it’s crude is because it’s working with ”crude” people. That is, people who are so simple and predictable and unsophisticated that they easily fall into groups. You fall so easily into groups because you are NOT individuals (and see, I’m now extending my generalization from all academics to ALL people i.e. you! --- you’re ALL “types”, not an individual amongst you!!!!): you all think the same, say the same things, and behave in the same way. That’s because you all think what those in power tell you to think, say what you are told to say, hold the opinions you are told to hold, wear the clothes you are told to wear, live in the little boxes, in little pink ones and yellow ones that are all made of tickey-tackey and that all look just the same, that you are told to live in, and so on and so forth.

So, when those numpties, the computer scientists who write this analyzing software think they are making a really “powerful” tool --- and the software is considered “powerful” and google and the likes are totally in love with themselves for using it to get such “powerful” results, and oooooh, the POWER --- the tool they are using is actually a wimp, it is weak and ineffectual, because the job it is doing is SO crude and unsophisticated because the raw material the tool works with, YOU, is also unsophisticated, because you are all so predictable and therefore you DO all easily fall into types.

Which brings me to a suggestion for the organizations (I forget their names, I think Liberty is one) who monitor internet surveillance and campaign against its excesses on our behalf: these organizations want to limit the amount of surveillance and “information harvesting”; to force the likes of google to rein in its data gathering activities. Not a bat’s chance in hell of that ever happening. The way to STOP internet surveillance (data gathering) is NOT resorting to the law to prevent google from gathering data about you. The way to stop internet data gathering is for ALL people to become the unique individuals you would naturally be if you had not all succumbed to brain-washing by the powers that be. If each of you was an individual, that would scupper google’s activities. So, instead of trying to limit google’s activities, it would actually delver a death blow if you were all to become individuals because there’s no software that could ever be written that could profile billions of UNIQUE individuals.

Of course, the down side is that it’s no easy job becoming a unique individual…………… So, maybe you need those campaigning organizations to protect your internet privacy after all……….

So, are you a “type” or a unique individual?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a type of a unique individual. I will lazily use Google to search for mundane stuff. I'll use Startpage to search for things, I don't want the government to snoop on.

Whenever I am on a international call to my Mother, I'll always say 'Hello to whoever is listening.' and always always, in response my mother and I both will hear on the line: 'click click click.'

Of course I can't prove if there is a direct connection, but it's entertaining all the same.

Kind Regards ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panto, I've read your OP but I am unclear as to what you are asking. "Typing" people has been used by the advertising industry for over 100 years to sell products to "unique individuals."

I happen to believe that all people are unique (genetically, ontologically, maybe spiritually) even as all people are the same (as in we are not chimpanzees, dolphins or whales--the basis for the UN Declaration of Human Rights). So, are you saying that we who use certain forms of electronic communication are "typing" ourselves for the exploitation of business and government, and that there is another way to comport oneself to be more genuine ("unique")? Or are you saying something else?

On the one hand you sound suspicious of technological information-gathering, but on the other you suggest there are other ways to become more "unique" rather than a "type."

Can you explain the dilemma, or direction you'd like to see individuals go, a little further? Thanks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just one of those boring science types that uses evidence and critical reasoning when forming my opinions. The foundation of my education took place long before computers and the internet. For me information technology is simply another tool (like going to the library). But one thing I don't do...I don't characterize people who hold differing opinions from my own as being brain washed "types".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im one of the most unique individuals you would ever meet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertising programs are more sophisticated than you may give credit for. For example, I went to watch the NSW-vs-QLD State of Origin game last night (unfortunately NSW lost). Based solely on this information, whatever program is used to get information on me is going to check this data against all people who watch State of Origin, and by proxy all people who watch Rugby League. It probably cross-references all people who watch sport as well. From this, it can gather set of details on me based on what MOST people who watch State of Origin or sport in general are interested in. But then another website search will show I enjoy classical music, and watch sci-fi religiously. Suddenly the stereotypical Aussie-male who loves his footy, his barbecue, his Nascar racing, and his women is intruding on this information. Now the program is saying I'm not you're stereotypical footy watchers, I have other interests. When the program sees that I log into the Department of Education they realise I'm a White-collar worker and not a blue-collar worker, which ties in to different information that are typically sought by the blue-collar/white-collar worker. When I search Youtube for World Music or Classical, or any other I care to look for, the program takes it all in and tailors my advertising to what I am interested in.

Of course, I have programs that block all such advertising so the point is irrelevant in my case. But if such programs did not exist I would have a personally tailored set of ads that appeal to me. They may not appeal to my next-door neighbour who went to the Footy with me last night, because he has a different browsing history as I. I find your generalisation of browsing software to be quite shallow and uninformed. If you compare me to most of my friend's who watch Footy you won't see many who appreciate things like Monty Python. But when I log on to Youtube, even on the basic screen I'll have a random Monty Python scene to view, along with a random football moment to watch, as well as a song from a favourite band.... you get the idea. Your views are far too simplistic to warrant proper discussion, as far as I can tell.

That's as how I see it, in any case :)

~ Regards, PA

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertising programs are more sophisticated than you may give credit for. For example, I went to watch the NSW-vs-QLD State of Origin game last night (unfortunately NSW lost). Based solely on this information, whatever program is used to get information on me is going to check this data against all people who watch State of Origin, and by proxy all people who watch Rugby League. It probably cross-references all people who watch sport as well. From this, it can gather set of details on me based on what MOST people who watch State of Origin or sport in general are interested in. But then another website search will show I enjoy classical music, and watch sci-fi religiously. Suddenly the stereotypical Aussie-male who loves his footy, his barbecue, his Nascar racing, and his women is intruding on this information. Now the program is saying I'm not you're stereotypical footy watchers, I have other interests. When the program sees that I log into the Department of Education they realise I'm a White-collar worker and not a blue-collar worker, which ties in to different information that are typically sought by the blue-collar/white-collar worker. When I search Youtube for World Music or Classical, or any other I care to look for, the program takes it all in and tailors my advertising to what I am interested in.

Do you really intend to imply that the process of classification you describe is anything other than completely trivial, easy-peasy? You are describing the advertisers taxonomic ranking system. It was preceded, of course, by scientists classifying the world of living things: Main taxonomic ranks Latin English regio domain regnum kingdom phylum divisio phylum (in zoology)division (in botany)classis class ordo order familia family genus genus species species

The principles by which this pyramid is produced are the same as you describe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im one of the most unique individuals you would ever meet

So said the Elephant Man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So said the Elephant Man!

thats good, because i respect him largly, poor but strong man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me information technology is simply another tool (like going to the library). But one thing I don't do...I don't characterize people who hold differing opinions from my own as being brain washed "types".

In other words, you conform to the Type that doesn't "characterize people who hold differing opinions from my own as being brain washed "types""......... It quite often goes with a higher education. The well-educated frequently learn to be too pc, too polite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually ... I believe that the higher educated (particularly in Sciences, rather than Social Sciences which has no scientific background whatsoever) are the least likely to be drawn into PC commentary.

I am sure that we can all be "typed" just as everyone else can be "typed" - is it important? NO , not really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're one heck of an authoritarian type, that's for sure

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're one heck of an authoritarian type, that's for sure

read my mind indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody's brain is wired a little different, so a lot of how you think depends on what side of the brain you use the most. I am a creative thinker who has worked at being more analytical, because I like science. Of course culture has a big roll. I don't know what type a person I am, I guess I am a geeky hippie artist. A lot of people think I am rather odd when they first meet me, but then I hang with people who have some strange life styles, so my friends think I am normal by their standard.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone thinks they don't fit into some psychological or personality type or category, they are mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, are you a “type” or a unique individual?

To be honest I see myself as nothing more than a person. Not unique or special but merely one human amongst billions. In my own mind, to even call myself anything other than a mere person is to be arrogant and narcissistic.

Please note, I speak only for and about myself on the subject, not others.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typecasting is a way of sorting people quickly, usually done without engaging in a meaningful thought process, with little real knowledge of the person being typed, and usually without the person's knowledge that they are being typed, let alone being informed of the criteria. It's like sorting rocks. Let's type the rocks by color, say green. So all the green rocks go into a basket because they are "alike". But the rocks can sorted using a different criteria, ie. the type of rock they are, igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic. Or by their age, But if you stick with one criteria, green, you're still left with the differences between jade, actinolite, emeralds, olivine, granite, aventurine, agate with green inclusions, amazonite, etc. So what you've got are rocks that are green or have green inclusions, but that really tells us very little about the nature of the stones themselves, in fact, that they all fit in the criteria or type of green is probably the least useful piece of information we have about the rocks. One could point to the the basket of green rocks and say, yeah, these are all alike because they're green, and that statement would be inaccurate, because it includes only a very limited criteria, provides no other information that would help us correctly identify the type of rock, its origin, it's density, brittleness, uses, etc. An accurate statement might be, yes, these rocks are all alike in that they are within the color spectrum of green; but there aren't many more valid conclusions that can be reached with the limited information we have. Same with people. The more information we have the better armed we are to reach valid conclusions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. The more information we have the better armed we are to reach valid conclusions.

Experience is a great teacher. One learns to recognise SIGNIFICANT features, the giveaways, in other words. So, for example, an inexperienced geologist may need to take a piece of rock back to the lab and analyse it. An experienced geologist will take one look at a piece of green rock and identify it correctly because they see significant details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

you're one heck of an authoritarian type, that's for sure

I take that as a compliment. When people are so wishy-washy and afraid of having an opinion without larding it with words such as "in my humble opinion" or bolstering it with multiple references to accepted authorities --- which, incidentally, is evidence of the high regard authoritative people are held in --- in fact, the only difference between pantodragon and these much referenced "authorities" , is that they have a certificate and she does not (or at least, if she does have a certificate, she doesn't stand on it, preferring to stand on her own two feet!!") --- so if I go off to the Wizard of Oz and ask him for a brain, to which he will respond by giving me a certificate (like theScarecrow) then my authoritarianism too will become acceptable.

Actually, I realise that as one of said wishy-washy brigade, you are jealous of my ability to actually hold an opinion and stand my ground in the face of being thoroughly slapped about the head with a wet dishrags by said wishy-washy brigade. Actually, I can hold my ground in the face of much tougher opposition than you. So there! Yah boooo!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you have two feet to stand on???? Or, like the man with the wooden leg said, it's a matter of a pinion!!

Edited by pantodragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope!

when i say authoritarian, i'm saying you talk like a little dictator, telling people what you believe they think, what you believe they <i>believe</i>. you aren't here to talk to people, you're here to talk at them. there's no discussion with an authoritarian.

i ain't jealous of you. i do think you're pretty funny, though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

im one of the most unique individuals you would ever meet

Me too. But our type always says that.

* Really, i 've never met anyone who wasn't an entirely unique individual.

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I take that as a compliment. When people are so wishy-washy and afraid of having an opinion without larding it with words such as "in my humble opinion" or bolstering it with multiple references to accepted authorities --- which, incidentally, is evidence of the high regard authoritative people are held in --- in fact, the only difference between pantodragon and these much referenced "authorities" , is that they have a certificate and she does not (or at least, if she does have a certificate, she doesn't stand on it, preferring to stand on her own two feet!!") --- so if I go off to the Wizard of Oz and ask him for a brain, to which he will respond by giving me a certificate (like theScarecrow) then my authoritarianism too will become acceptable.

Actually, I realise that as one of said wishy-washy brigade, you are jealous of my ability to actually hold an opinion and stand my ground in the face of being thoroughly slapped about the head with a wet dishrags by said wishy-washy brigade. Actually, I can hold my ground in the face of much tougher opposition than you. So there! Yah boooo!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you have two feet to stand on???? Or, like the man with the wooden leg said, it's a matter of a pinion!!

Experience is a great teacher. One learns to recognise SIGNIFICANT features, the giveaways, in other words. So, for example, an inexperienced geologist may need to take a piece of rock back to the lab and analyse it. An experienced geologist will take one look at a piece of green rock and identify it correctly because they see significant details.

Experience can be a great teacher, but that depends upon the student, doesn't it? You've had plenty of experience being called out on name-calling & insults, but appear to have learned nothing from that, because you are still stereo-typing. And experience is not the same as having information or knowledge. An experience just is, what we make of it comes largely out of our information, knowledge, and education.

Edited by Beany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone thinks they don't fit into some psychological or personality type or category, they are mistaken.

.

is "fool" a psychological/personality type or category SMK?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone thinks they don't fit into some psychological or personality type or category, they are mistaken.

So do snowflakes ,pellets, etc. .. but within the types each one is still Unique. It's the same with people? No two are exactly alike... therefore , Unique?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the very term "unique" solely dependent on someone else's perception?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.