OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Four Types

Entry 612, on 2007-09-21 at 20:55:28 (Rating 3, Philosophy)

A recent series of discussions I have been involved with has shown me what one of the major problems currently facing human progress really is. Its that people can't think. Of course they can think enough to survive the mundane activities of the day, and even enough to do some simple maths when doing shopping for example (although many are challenged by that).

The thinking I'm really referring to is the type involved with sorting through conflicting evidence, researching ideas in a sensible way, and drawing conclusions by balancing various ideas and facts. This is the sort of thinking required when someone needs to make a political decision, such as who to vote for in an election. Or it might be the sort of thinking needed when debating theology or philosophy with someone like myself on the Internet.

I think I've identified 4 types of people from the perspective of thinking. First there are the right wing conservatives. These people have a traditional set of beliefs (often of a religious nature) and aren't going to abandon them no matter what. They distrust science and often see liberal conspiracies intent on suppressing religion and other traditional ideas. I have been debating global warming with someone like this recently and it can be a very frustrating experience.

The second type of person is the opposite. This is the post-modernist lefty. These people have liberal political beliefs but they accept some sort of relativist doctrine that rejects science because its just another form of truth which is no better than alternatives which include spirituality. I have debated people like this too, and that can also be frustrating because no matter how logical and effective science might be they won't accept that it has any more merit than any arbitrary new age belief.

The third type is probably the most common. They are the type who just don't care. They might base their political choice on the candidate with the nicest smile. They might assume religion is true because why would you not? And if you show anything they believe isn't true they don't care. Apathy rules for them. A similar category is the follower. These people just follow on from what their parents or friends do and think. They vote the same way as their family always have and have similar religious or spiritual beliefs.

The final type is, of course, the free thinker. These people rely on logic and science to form their beliefs. They distrust established truths unless there is independent supporting evidence. They are cynical and skeptical of everything. I think of myself as this type of person (in case you hadn't already figured that out) and I agree that you should treat the above theory with the utmost skepticism because I haven't provided supporting evidence. So think of this more as a philosophical musing rather than a serious proposal!

There are no comments for this entry.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.