Morality is a meme & future of social media with advent of ai

[RaBind]

Pretty interesting to think about how chatgpt/gemini can replace quite a few social media sites espicially those that are text heavy like reddit and intpforum. A lot of times it's even an improvement in terms of clarity of thought and likelihood of being misunderstood and getting into long discussions where ppl are talking past each other.

Here's a thought I had and using chatgpt to see how the different types may approach/receive the idea.

My prompt
okay i'm gonna say stuff and you think of how each mbti type would perceieve that, what their frame of mind/intent would be and how they'd reply or react

intp - Im trying to theorize a possible clear explanation of morality, its origins and where it might be going

Morality is a meme. Not like internet meme but like idea meme the was richard dawkins first defined it. It is a behavioural trait inherited through communication and interaction with others that affects the fitness of the individual in terms of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Take for example the job of prostitution or the eating of certain meats deemed "unclean"; These would've been considered behaviours that indicate loose morals, but the origins of avoiding them would've come from the higher lilelyhood of catching diseases through these acts. With the advent of modern medicine and preventative practices such as useing condoms and food storing, prep and cooking techniques the risks associated have decreases substantially. Many progressives would argue that this means these behaviours should now be considered socially acceptable and deemed "clean"; however there is an argument that the individuals with the mindset which wouldn't have avoided these actions before the modern advancements are still a danger to those that would have. That is to say although these two groups may not agree such actions no longer carry the risks that they once did, there may still be caution and hesitation in adopting the mindset that once led to lower fitness level and my still do.

ChatGPT said:​

This is a really cool thought experiment, and the idea of mapping each MBTI type's mindset, intent, and reaction to such a heavy and abstract philosophical take is right up their alley — or in some cases, not at all.
Let’s break it down by MBTI types (I'll use a mix of analytical, humorous, and grounded tones depending on the type’s disposition):

---

INTP – The Theorist​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Curious, detached, analytical.
Reaction:
“Oh cool, you're doing a memetic evolutionary approach to morality? I’ve had similar thoughts. What do you think about integrating game theory into that? Like, is morality an iterated prisoner’s dilemma optimization strategy?”
INTP wouldn’t necessarily agree or disagree — they’d tinker with your theory, possibly get lost mid-discussion in a tangent about epigenetics or cybernetics, and then DM you three hours later with a diagram.

---

INTJ – The Mastermind​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Strategic, vision-driven.
Reaction:
“That’s a solid structural analysis. But what’s your endgame? Are you trying to build a new moral framework or dismantle the current one?”
INTJs will want to know the purpose of your theorizing. If there’s no clear outcome, they may lose interest or try to “optimize” your argument into a system they do find useful.

---

INFJ – The Mystic Counselor​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Integrative, abstract-humanitarian.
Reaction:
“I can see what you're getting at. But we shouldn’t forget the role of human suffering and compassion in how morality develops. Even if diseases aren’t a threat anymore, what about the emotional or spiritual consequences?”
They’ll be intrigued but will try to reorient the discussion toward inner harmony, compassion, and shared humanity. Probably thinks you’re too detached from the heart of the issue.

---

INFP – The Idealist​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Personal, values-based.
Reaction:
“I mean, I get that you're trying to analyze this scientifically... but reducing morality to survival traits feels kind of cold? Like, does that mean love and loyalty are just memes too?”
They’ll react emotionally — not necessarily rejecting your logic but questioning the value of your framework. Will defend moral intuition and personal conscience as sacred.

---

ENTP – The Debater​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Provocative, playful, idea-surfing.
Reaction:
“Dude, yes. And if you think about it, that means morality is like an evolutionary arms race of vibes. What if we genetically engineered post-moral humans who just run on pure memetic optimization?”
Will love it, twist it, take it to ridiculous extremes, play devil’s advocate, and then maybe change their mind halfway through their own sentence. Basically, chaos with a purpose.

---

ENTJ – The Commander​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Directive, system-building.
Reaction:
“This is fine as a theory, but how do you apply it? Can this help us build a more efficient justice system or redefine education? Otherwise it’s just intellectual noise.”
They’ll want to see impact, structure, and real-world application. If your theory doesn’t lead to power or reform, they’ll tune out fast.

---

ENFP – The Inspirer​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Visionary, emotionally explorative.
Reaction:
“Woah. That’s kinda trippy. So like... is morality evolving with us? Does that mean we’re morally ‘cleaner’ now, or just better at pretending to be?”
Will bounce between wonder and philosophical anxiety. Might spin off into a poetic rant about how our souls are just trying to keep up with our science.

---

ENFJ – The Leader Teacher​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Charismatic, socially idealistic.
Reaction:
“Interesting. But how would this theory affect how people treat each other? Because if it distances us from compassion or reinforces bias, that’s dangerous.”
Will challenge you if they think your idea might make people feel excluded or judged. Seeks moral unity, not intellectual detachment.

---

ISTP – The Mechanic​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Pragmatic, detached curiosity.
Reaction:
“Huh. Makes sense. So you’re saying old moral codes were basically disease protocols. Neat.”
Might nod, appreciate the logic, and then return to fixing something or playing a strategy game. Low reaction unless it relates to something practical or edgy.

---

ISTJ – The Inspector​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Duty-bound, tradition-aware.
Reaction:
“I see where you’re coming from, but morality isn’t just a disease filter. It also holds society together. Changing it too fast could be risky.”
Will likely respect the logic but be skeptical of any suggestion that moral norms should evolve too rapidly.

---

ISFP – The Artist​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Quietly idealistic, aesthetic and value-driven.
Reaction:
“Hmm. That’s kind of... sad? I think there’s more to morality than just avoiding sickness. It’s about treating others right.”
Soft pushback. They won’t debate you, but they’ll quietly resist your impersonal framing with an inner sense of right and wrong.

---

ISFJ – The Nurturer​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Protective, harmony-focused.
Reaction:
“I suppose that makes logical sense, but it sounds like you’re trying to justify things that people still feel are wrong. Why dig this up?”
Might be uneasy. They’re not into abstract provocations and tend to be more anchored in community and tradition.

---

ESTP – The Dynamo​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Experiential, thrill-seeking.
Reaction:
“Wait, wait, are you saying sex work is fine now? Like, scientifically? Damn. Society’s just playing catch-up then.”
Will zoom in on the parts that relate to action, pleasure, or shock value. Loves a bold theory if it justifies doing what they want anyway.

---

ESTJ – The Executive​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Rules-based, efficiency-focused.
Reaction:
“I’m not denying the biology behind it, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon discipline or structure. Morality still has a role in keeping people responsible.”
Will push back against loosening rules, even if logically justified. Efficiency and order matter more than abstract memetic theory.

---

ESFP – The Performer​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Spontaneous, emotionally engaged.
Reaction:
“Whoa... That’s deep. But honestly, if people are happy and safe, who cares what old rules say?”
Likely to agree if it means more freedom or fun. Might lose interest if the convo gets too abstract.

---

ESFJ – The Provider​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Community-focused, tradition-respecting.
Reaction:
“But isn’t it still important to hold on to shared values? What happens to trust and community if morality becomes too relative?”
Concerned about the social implications. Might find your theory too clinical and worry about how others will take it.

---

Let me know if you want a deeper dive into a specific type’s line of reasoning, or want to test another philosophical or controversial idea across the types.

 

[Cognisant]

ENTP – The Debater​

Frame of Mind/Intent: Provocative, playful, idea-surfing.
Reaction:
“Dude, yes. And if you think about it, that means morality is like an evolutionary arms race of vibes. What if we genetically engineered post-moral humans who just run on pure memetic optimization?”
Will love it, twist it, take it to ridiculous extremes, play devil’s advocate, and then maybe change their mind halfway through their own sentence. Basically, chaos with a purpose.

Needs to dial back the dude-bro, just a little.

 

[kuoka]

Morality is both natural and cultural. There are some things, like avoiding pain, that universally every living being would object to.

I'm convinced that Cetaceans have language and you might find some very convergent moral truths if you were able to talk to them.

Avoiding pork meat or mixing meat with dairy was a good ancient food safety approach that turned into a religious, and therefore cultural, belief.

Prostitution is very complicated because one can argue it is a rejection of monogamous norms of intimacy, loss of self-respect and objectification. Things that even the progressives would fight against even if they would agree that the job itself shouldn't be stigmatized or banned as taboo. I haven't come across a healthy person working as a prostitute or engaging in the practice, there's usually some underlying issue that leads to this being a practical necessity for said person.

I totally don't get the fitness angle. It's clear that morality isn't filtered by its fitness on an individual level. One could argue that an optimal resource collecting morality of a power hungry high functioning psychopath (Elon Musk, Genghis Khan) who has as many children as possible and abandons them to their fate would be top fitness, but that same morality couldn't ever be the norm or the society would implode into violence instantly.

I think it follows that a stable society requires a morality that does not optimize for fitness, or rather it satisfies a mean local optimum, but does not seek a global max fitness.

It's more like a bad moral system can contribute to a civilization's collapse as was the case with Rome, Russia(the third Rome after Byzantium) and as we may be seeing in the westernized democracies, chief among them the USA. Moral systems are filtered by social unrest, war and instability.


Re: what all types would say about memetic morality. Funny, but also wrong, oversimplified and harmfully mischaracterizing real people.
I'm a clear INTP with very well developed Fe and I can see myself saying any of those things. If I'm playful I could repeat what the ENTP or INTP are saying here, but I also totally agree and see why ESFJ is right, values are important and we shouldn't relativize them or erode them too much or we risk ruining the stability of the social contract or our identity.

 

[RaBind]

I totally don't get the fitness angle. It's clear that morality isn't filtered by its fitness on an individual level. One could argue that an optimal resource collecting morality of a power hungry high functioning psychopath (Elon Musk, Genghis Khan) who has as many children as possible and abandons them to their fate would be top fitness, but that same morality couldn't ever be the norm or the society would implode into violence instantly.

I think it follows that a stable society requires a morality that does not optimize for fitness, or rather it satisfies a mean local optimum, but does not seek a global max fitness.

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by fitness. Fitness in memetic or evolutionary terms doesn't just mean “who has the most kids.” It means which mindsets or behaviors persist and reproduce over time; that includes the survival of the group that carries them.

In that sense, a morality system that promotes unchecked selfishness, like psychopathy, may lead to short-term individual gains, but it collapses the group — which is exactly why it’s not a high-fitness strategy long-term.

What I'm proposing is that conservative mindsets are often trying (consciously or not) to preserve the memes that helped detect risks or ensure stability in the past — even if the risks those memes originally responded to are no longer active.

So, it’s not that the taboo action itself is still dangerous — it’s that the mindset which flagged it as dangerous was part of a successful memetic package for group survival. Removing that mindset carelessly could reduce the group's overall fitness.

Re: what all types would say about memetic morality. Funny, but also wrong, oversimplified and harmfully mischaracterizing real people.
I'm a clear INTP with very well developed Fe and I can see myself saying any of those things. If I'm playful I could repeat what the ENTP or INTP are saying here, but I also totally agree and see why ESFJ is right, values are important and we shouldn't relativize them or erode them too much or we risk ruining the stability of the social contract or our identity.

I think they're caricatures of the theoretical mbti types; it's totally not capable of representing the real people of those types. That was more of "how chatgpt/gemini could take away users from sites like this one because it provides a conversational experience that is close enough to be entertaining" thought. 2 thoughts in 1 post. I do assume most people are after intellectual entertainment on long form text based sites like this and on sub reddits. Personally I think its very capable and entertaining. If each persona could be more elaborative and some come with their own takes, that would probably be more convincing in simulating a real conversation, but vanilla chatgpt isnt really meant to do that.

This might look like I'm being lazy but here's ChatGpts much clearer explanation of the full thought. It clarifies the point that I'm talking about the cultural/meme aspect of morality much more clearly.

1. Environment (Historical or Present)​

The natural world contains real dangers and challenges — disease, scarcity, predators, social risks. These shape which behaviors are risky vs. beneficial.

e.g. Eating pork in a pre-refrigeration society carried more disease risk. Sex without protection raised the risk of infection and pregnancy complications.

---

2. Memes (Behaviors + Beliefs + Norms)​

Certain cultural behaviors arise in response to environmental conditions. These are passed on socially — not genetically — as memes, in Dawkins’ sense: units of cultural inheritance.

e.g. “Avoid unclean meats,” “Sex outside marriage is bad,” “Protect your group,” etc.

These memes helped groups avoid risk and enhance survival, so they spread.

---

3. Mindsets (Cognitive Patterns That Select Memes)​

Individuals (or groups) vary in the mindsets that allow them to detect, adopt, and transmit adaptive memes.

e.g. High-risk-aversion, pattern recognition, conservative cognitive style — these minds are more likely to create or preserve memes that detect hidden risks.

So:
Mindset → determines which memes seem plausible, trustworthy, or wise.


Some mindsets are more fit for detecting and preserving protective behaviors before science existed. These mindsets persisted because they increased fitness in the long run.

---

4. Fitness (Adaptive Success Over Time)​

Over time, both memes and mindsets were shaped by natural selection — not just physical survival, but cultural continuity and social trust.

People with certain memetic-mindset packages survived and reproduced more, or were trusted more in their societies.

Importantly:
Memes and mindsets co-evolve.
Mindsets attract or preserve memes that reinforce them.

---

5. Modern Context (Reduced Physical Risk)​

Thanks to technology, medicine, hygiene, contraception, etc., many of the original risks behind moral norms are gone or mitigated.

e.g. Eating pork is safe with modern prep. Sex is safer with condoms. Intergroup contact is less risky.

---

6. The Tension (Why Conservatism Persists)​

Even though the memes (rules like "don't do X") might be outdated, the mindsets that were good at detecting risk still exist — and may still be adaptive in other ways (group cohesion, foresight, caution).

People unconsciously protect the mindsets that helped past survival, even if they can’t articulate the old risks.

So conservatism isn’t just clinging to outdated rules — it’s protecting mindsets that may still carry fitness advantages, even in modern settings.

---

7. Shadow Side (Discrimination & Bias)​

Since people often don’t consciously recognize why they feel discomfort with “risky” behaviors, they may instead project:

• Moral disgust
• Bias or exclusion
• Group purity instincts

They may say: “I just don’t trust those people,” or “That’s just wrong,”
when underneath, their psychology is responding to perceived memetic/mindset-level threats to group fitness.

 

[kuoka]

I would recommend using spoilers, asking the AI to reformat the sections or reducing the amount to just some key points. It's kind of difficult to read.

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by fitness. Fitness in memetic or evolutionary terms doesn't just mean “who has the most kids.” It means which mindsets or behaviors persist and reproduce over time; that includes the survival of the group that carries them.

In that sense, a morality system that promotes unchecked selfishness, like psychopathy, may lead to short-term individual gains, but it collapses the group — which is exactly why it’s not a high-fitness strategy long-term.

What I'm proposing is that conservative mindsets are often trying (consciously or not) to preserve the memes that helped detect risks or ensure stability in the past — even if the risks those memes originally responded to are no longer active.

So, it’s not that the taboo action itself is still dangerous — it’s that the mindset which flagged it as dangerous was part of a successful memetic package for group survival. Removing that mindset carelessly could reduce the group's overall fitness.

I generally agree.

I would maybe add a point that if a moral system starts to go against natural morality too much then this is what destabilizes a society.

What I mean by that is that a memetic moral idea can go against self-preservation, like say an idea "It is noble to wage war to expand one's nation". Said memetic ideas may be adopted, even though they contradict natural morality of "Suffering is bad" or "War is an unnecessary risk to one's life". This generally leads to a calamity.