Bernard Hughes wrote:
> Dan Fabulich wrote:
> > To throw in my own two cents on this...
> > I don't have to show that a desire for privacy is a part of human nature in
> > order to justify Lorrey's claim. Acting in accordance with one's own
> > desires IS a part of human nature. Since lots of people like privacy (for
> > *whatever* reason!), forcing them to give it up is contrary to human
> > nature. That's all there is to it.
> > Hope this helps settle the matter. ;)
> I don't see why you should give primacy to human nature at all. Isn't
> civilisation all about overriding our original human nature to allow us to live
> in larger groups? Potty training of children springs to mind, which makes public
> health systems workable. If a lot of people like privacy, that's a good reason
> for not forcing them to give it up.
> I'd guess "no privacy" would work just fine in a town where everyone had agreed
> to it, and all had a suitable level of mutual tolerance. No selling the tapes to
> outsiders though.
I would tend to turn the problem around. Privacy is the natural state, as the low side of communication volume -> we can't communicate perfectly with the rest of society. We are prisoners of our own skul, individuality: we can't -physically- share all information with the rest of society.
There is an old BW french movie with young rebel jean paul belmondo (for those who know), and he talks about the sentence "sleeping with someone"*. Arguing that in fact we don't really sleep with, we merely sleep beside someone!
BTW, fill me for ENFP. Although I would tend to identify with ENTP. I can't believe that distinction between soft and hard hearted...