It’s funny I litterally just finished an episode of Search Engine, the ‘new’ PJ Vogt podcast, where that’s the actual question. It was the May 3rd episode, and they’re interviewing a researcher on the topic, etc.

I’m not going to replay an ontological debate that has been happening in the fields of sociology and psychology for decades with an engineer on the internet, who claims his own rationality a bit too hard. MBTI is considered pseudoscience because of its weakness against proper scientific validation processes, as well as its lack of support among both practitioners, theorists and researchers in the academic circles.

But to be clear, just because knowledge isn’t scientific doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value, there are tons of example like that that we use every day. The main issue I have with MBTI is that it takes the appearance of scientific knowledge, which I find deceitful and thus suspicious.

It’s pseudoscience in both cases, saying you’re so and so because your personality is INFJ has almost as little value as correlating to being a gemini. Now if you find some sense in those personality types, maybe that contains some lessons.

I have never agreed more with a stranger on a topic so niche

My bad, I edited my comment.

So two ministers of the actual israelian governement are now “two random dudes”.

These misconceptions indeed do not excuse supporting Hamas, which is why I said demanding a ceasefire and an investigation into a potential genocide and denouncing Hamas’ terrorist acts aren’t exclusive positions.

Disagreeing with someone saying there is a genocide happening, when there is indeed one happening, is not just a matter of opinion, it is effectively denying the suffering of thousands, or giving it some legitimacy. You can’t just complain about hostility when your opinion, whether consciously or not, carries its own share of violence.

Calling the 153 countries who voted in favour of a ceasefire, including Finland, Canada, Australia, Japan, Norway, Belgium, Sweden or Switzerland, a “block of authoritarian and Muslim countries primarily” is a bold claim. Here is the list of the 10 countries who voted against – for fun I’ve included their latest score on the Democracy Index, on a scale from 0 to 10 where 10 is the most democratic –: Austria (8,2), Czech Republic (7,9), Guatemala (4,6), Israel (7,9), Liberia (5,4), Micronesia (no data), Nauru (no data), Papua New Guinea (6,5), Paraguay (6,1), United States of America (8,2).

But they are committing genocide. Opinion is irrelevant against facts: they are trying to expell the palestinian population from Gaza, they even said it out loud two days ago. This and the fact that Hamas have committed terrorist acts are two facts that can coexist in the world.

I think you’re right, maybe I’m just being impatient. I just appreciate the mix of points of view, I think it helps to see things differently.

People of different background have more chance to have a bigger diversity of point of view. You may not be able to guess the background of a single commenter, but you can spot things missing. Also, I wasn’t actually thinking about race, but gender identities and sexual orientations as well.

I know this comment could receive some negative feedback, but Lemmy lacks diversity in its userbase, compared to Reddit (or Tumblr in the old times). It’s just a feeling, when I scroll through comments and posts on Lemmy, I picture most of the users as 16-46 yo white males.

EDIT: changed “45” to “46”, see comment below.

When you talk about international politics, terrorist is a useless word because its definition is vague and often defined by the power in place: when the Hamas kills civilians it’s “terrorism”, when Israel does it it’s “protection”. The fact that you use it so passionnately instantly disqualifies your argument, underlining its biases.

That’s not world news, that’s propaganda. The article is so biased and doesn’t even pretend to understand the dynamics or context of Switzerland’s parliament.

reminds me of the abu ghraib photos

You’re just presenting nuanced conclusions as overwhelming truths to put weight on your opinion, while taking a few shortcuts. You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but that doesn’t mean you get to dismiss any contradicting ones by deciding unilaterally what the words mean.

Chiropractice in the US might be just “cracking joints”, but it’s not true everywhere. If you can’t accept that, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Psychoanalysis was invented almost at the same time in Vienna and a lot of freudian concepts have since been critiqued due to his biases. Does it mean Austria forever owns psychoanalysis and anything that could be discovered since? There is a difference between a field of research, a scientific discipline and a paradigm. Debunking a theory that was invented more than a century ago doesn’t disqualify every research done after that. Also, paradigm change often comes from opposing theories from the same field they oppose. If we did like that, there wouldn’t be a lot of research field left standing.

You accept yourself that osteopathy was able to go beyond its suspicious origin, but refuse to imagine that chiropractice could do the same. Which is why I reiterate: chiropractice requiring no medical training is a north american thing.

in the us, again, it doesn’t happen like that in a lot of countries.

That’s just not true, regulations imply healthcare reimbursement, which implies strict control on the treatment and the practicians, because insurance companies hate paying.

…from a north american perspective.

Those definitions are just not true in a lot of countries outside of the us.