Example of Te reacting to Fe role criticism

[Expat]

An excellent example of an ESTj (as I think Richard Dawkins is) receiving criticism on the use of Fe.


[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik[/youtube]

[Logos]

You think Richard Dawkins is an ESTj and not an ENTp? He argues like an ENTp and seems to have an Fi PoLR.

[Kristiina]

I agree - it's an excellent example of Fe critizism and the response made me laugh. And it was really pleasant to see an Fe dominant in action, being very confident and respected. I would have thought that society only lets cheerleaders get away with Fe talk and that Fe-dominants who are not cheerleaders just use their Fe to imitate other types.

[Expat]

You think Richard Dawkins is an ESTj and not an ENTp? He argues like an ENTp and seems to have an Fi PoLR.

What I get from reading his books is a worship of Te. To me, a true ENTp book, Ti-drunk , is David Deutsch's The Fabric of Reality.

I don't think he has Fi PoLR at all. What do you mean?

From watching him, I see him as Te, Fe role, but also with a sort of Delta vibe rather than Gamma.

[Logos]

You think Richard Dawkins is an ESTj and not an ENTp? He argues like an ENTp and seems to have an Fi PoLR.

What I get from reading his books is a worship of Te. To me, a true ENTp book, Ti-drunk, is David Deutsch's The Fabric of Reality.

I do not think that he is a worshiper of Te, but that it exists as his 8th function, as while he does stress the validity of facts at times, his main pursuit is theoretical than factual evolutionary biology. While it is fun to stereotype all ENTp scientists as being astrophysicists, that is obviously not always the case, and it is not in this one, in which Dawkins brings the Ne & Ti theoretical to the zoology and genetic fields. He does have a similar style of presentation as David Deutsch in that he enjoys keeping the audience entertained and does not do it in a manner that suggests a forced role function. And like Deutsch, even asks the question, what can't science do? Also Dawkins has a tendency to ignore evidence in regards points and practical value (Te) if it does not fit with his system (Ti). While his facts do seem to conform to the scientific standards of Te, it is again more a matter of Te as an 8th function . He will also easily strip down ideas to its key base points and concepts (Ne) as can be seen in his look into different theological arguments in the God Delusion. He is very to the point in his presentations, and generally speaks in mostly conceptual lines of thinking. Also, in terms of his philosophical views of how he perceived of the universe, he found himself in the God Delusion agreeing more with Einstein (ILE), Stephen Hawking (ILE), and Spinoza (ILE). And just like how Stephen Hawking wanted to make the basic concepts of science accessible by popularizing popular science, Richard Dawkins is doing the same with the arguments for atheism in what can be called popular non-theism.

I don't think he has Fi PoLR at all. What do you mean?

Yes, the speaker is criticizing his use of Fe, but then again, so does the ESE & SEI to the LII & ILE as they can be blunt, tactless, step on toes, and not even realize it at all. One of the greatest reminders which the ESE will generally remind the LII is that it is not just what you say, but how you say it that also matters. He also likes the attention which he is receiving and loves being and keeping in the spotlight (Fe HA). But in regards to the Fi PoLR, the below quote seems to apply to Dawkins:

Little importance is given on evaluating the inner feelings or emotional state of other individuals, which are seen as irrelevant or assumed to be non-existent, if not reflected on clear external actions and emotional expressions. Therefore the individual dismisses the notion of others looking for those factors in himself. Statements by other persons reflecting their inner feelings are not really registered by the individual if not accompanied by external emotional expression or actions. Suggestions that the individual may have acted unethically in the eyes of another person who, however, has not expressed disapproval obviously or immediately, are met with bafflement by the individual.

Dawkins generally operates, debates, and speaks in a manner that suggests Fi-be-damned he is going to say what he thinks needs to be said and often in a manner that again suggests a Fe HA.

I see him as Te, Fe role, but also with a sort of Delta vibe rather than Gamma.

Okay, and I don't. I see him as a Ne, Fi role, with an Alpha vibe.

[Blaze]

+2 logos.

[Expat]

-2 diamond.

[Phaedrus]

Also, in terms of his philosophical views of how he perceived of the universe, he found himself in the God Delusion agreeing more with Einstein (ILE) and Spinoza (ILE).

The interesting thing here is that both Einstein and Spinoza are monists and objectivists (= not relativists), and that neither Spinoza's nor Einstein's system is a system. I would really like to have a good explanation for the phenomenon that the views of some supposed ENTps are so much in agreement with a -based world view. Is there a simple explanation for that, or are they mistyped?

If you want to find clear examples of systems, go to Leibniz or Kant. Descartes might perhaps also be included in that group. And at least Leibniz and Descartes are clear examples of pluralists. Plato was a monist, and those following in his footsteps are also monists -- and objectivists. The relativists tend not to be monists (Descartes believed that there were three substances --- God, the soul, and matter, whereas Leibniz believed in the existence of infinitely many substances).

[Logos]

Also, in terms of his philosophical views of how he perceived of the universe, he found himself in the God Delusion agreeing more with Einstein (ILE) and Spinoza (ILE).

The interesting thing here is that both Einstein and Spinoza are monists and objectivists (= not relativists), and that neither Spinoza's nor Einstein's system is a system. I would really like to have a good explanation for the phenomenon that the views of some supposed ENTps are so much in agreement with a -based world view. Is there a simple explanation for that, or are they mistyped?

If you want to find clear examples of systems, go to Leibniz or Kant. Descartes might perhaps also be included in that group. And at least Leibniz and Descartes are clear examples of pluralists. Plato was a monist, and those following in his footsteps are also monists -- and objectivists. The relativists tend not to be monists (Descartes believed that there were three substances --- God, the soul, and matter, whereas Leibniz believed in the existence of infinitely many substances).

No the interesting thing here is that you continue to make a fool of yourself.

[Elro]

+2 logos.

-2 diamond.

-3000 everybody but me!

Oh yes, that was so easy.

[discojoe]

The critic has a point. Fe is an important part of communicating with "the public".

[ScarlettLux]

He is LSE? O RLY?! I don't know much about them but I get Alpha vibes, I agree with Logos. What he replied sounds more like Fi PoLR than anything else, and he does seem quite cheery, values Fe

[Kristiina]

Richard Dawkins reminded me of an ENFp for some reason. He didn't really "feel" like ENTp to me, but the huge majority of ENTps that I know are real-life scientists and I see them at their workplace. I agree more with ENTp than ESTj.

[Phaedrus]

No the interesting thing here is that you continue to make a fool of yourself.

That is not an argument. How about you tried to argue for a thesis instead of acting like an idiot? Expat is clearly right when he says that Dawkins worships Te. And I am right about the things I say about those philosophers.

[Jonathan]

He will also easily strip down ideas to its key base points and concepts (Ne)

I don't know much about Richard Dawkins, and I do know that a number of descriptions by prominent Socionists describe similar skills as what you mention in their descriptions of Ne is.

However, I don't think that's what Ne is. I think, in fact, stripping down ideas to their base components is a skill that may involve a number of different IM elements.

To say that only Ne types do this, or that people do this only through the use of Ne, seems rather absurd. Surely Te also involves a stripping down to what's relevant (from a Te perspective). Surely LSIs, through Ti, also boil things down to what's relevant from their perspective. Every IM element strips things down to what's relevant to that element.

So, I believe we have to accept that a great many Socionists are wrong about this, or at least that their views inherently lead to inconsistencies and problems.

[Logos]

No the interesting thing here is that you continue to make a fool of yourself.

That is not an argument.

Did I say it was?

How about you tried to argue for a thesis instead of acting like an idiot? Expat is clearly right when he says that Dawkins worships Te. And I am right about the things I say about those philosophers.

I have given an argument for Dawkins, but you want an argument for those philosophers, fine, I'll give you an argument. And I'll give you more than your candied -PoLRed ass can handle.

The interesting thing here is that both Einstein and Spinoza are monists and objectivists (= not relativists), and that neither Spinoza's nor Einstein's system is a system.

No, both Einstein and Spinoza were pantheists (or at least possessing beliefs which could be characterized as such) or naturalistic spiritualists (depending on your terminology), which is not exactly pure monism despite your efforts to view it as such, as many classical monists actually viewed the monad as being beyond the material world, whereas both Spinoza and Einstein were about treating the universe as a unified construct, which is more of a neutral monism. Also compare the universal views of Einstein, Spinoza, and Hawking (the name which I originally left out of the prior list). Einstein believed in what he saw as an impersonal deity, which was just an anthropomorphized universe, which he believed was best represented by Spinoza. And why would objectivists subscribe to what Dawkins termed "sexed-up atheism" when they would simply be about the validity of the and the reality thereof and not the construct that clinging to a "sexed-up atheism" view which that would most likely entail?

And neither Einstein nor Spinoza were objectivists. If Einstein was an objectivist, he would have obviously not been so reluctant to abandon his system of the universe for one that presupposed a dice-gambling God ("universe"), despite the evidence otherwise which highly suggested the validity of quantum mechanics. He swam in possibilities, potential, and theory. Then there is the hidden agenda that showed how much he loved the spotlight, and his clear need of for his all-too-wandering . Spinoza's arguments also have no real basis in empirical fact, but relied upon argumentative "proofs" regarding the relationship of things within the universe. This is how Spinoza comes to the conclusion of the uniformity of substance in the universe as seen in Ethics.

I would really like to have a good explanation for the phenomenon that the views of some supposed ENTps are so much in agreement with a -based world view. Is there a simple explanation for that, or are they mistyped?

8th Personal Knowledge function. That easy. Of course another possibility, which I am inclined to believe, is that it also that your conception of ENTps is also wrong.

If you want to find clear examples of systems, go to Leibniz or Kant.

Who were most likely leading and not the creative we are discussing here. But here is an interesting note regarding philosophy: Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, and Kant are all lumped into what is dubbed the Rationalists, for their use of structural logic and appeal of self-evident systems without the use of empirical basis which of course would be a part of what is now considered the Continental school of philosophy, which you love to call relativists. And the Continental school was of course opposed in ideology and approach with the Analytical school which contained the -idol Hume with its emphasis on skepticism and empiricism, which is not a characteristic of the previously aforementioned Rationalists. But of course you may be right that I made error in typing Spinoza as an LII, because it now seems possible that Spinoza is another LII like Descartes, Kant, and possibly Leibniz (who I am undecided as to whether he is ILE or LII).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

Descartes might perhaps also be included in that group.

And Spinoza was considered an offshoot of the Cartesian school of . They may have come up with different conclusions, but that does not matter with information elements, only the method which they used to arrive at that. And both Spinoza and Descartes used as means to derive their understanding of the universe.

And at least Leibniz and Descartes are clear examples of pluralists.

There is no or reason which suggests that Pluralists = & Monism = . Again, conclusions do no matter, but merely the method of information elements used to obtain that conclusion, which matter.

Plato was a monist, and those following in his footsteps are also monists -- and objectivists.

Prove it. Why do you think that is the case? If you claim to have creative-, I would sure love to see it right now, because as of now this is just an unfounded assertion with no logical or real factual basis unless you want to argue the aspect of Plato which was monistic. But Plato was hardly a monist, at least no more than philosopher who was responsible for the ancient and current Christian-Islamic, Gnostic, Manichean beliefs in the separation of body, soul, and spirit can be. He believed in a clear difference between these three entities. Now if you want argue that he is still a monist, fine, but your own logic will be working against you when you try and argue any further. Now, Buddhists are also monists, and in your own words, you said that Buddhism was an Alpha religion. Now, explain to me how and why monism is the exclusive domain of objectivists?

The relativists tend not to be monists (Descartes believed that there were three substances --- God, the soul, and matter, whereas Leibniz believed in the existence of infinitely many substances).

And what do you know, that's Plato too!

[Logos]

He will also easily strip down ideas to its key base points and concepts (Ne)

I don't know much about Richard Dawkins, and I do know that a number of descriptions by prominent Socionists describe similar skills as what you mention in their descriptions of Ne is.

However, I don't think that's what Ne is. I think, in fact, stripping down ideas to their base components is a skill that may involve a number of different IM elements.

To say that only Ne types do this, or that people do this only through the use of Ne, seems rather absurd. Surely Te also involves a stripping down to what's relevant (from a Te perspective). Surely LSIs, through Ti, also boil things down to what's relevant from their perspective. Every IM element strips things down to what's relevant to that element.

So, I believe we have to accept that a great many Socionists are wrong about this, or at least that their views inherently lead to inconsistencies and problems.

Why is it always a question of with you? If Phaedrus was a one note song of vs. , you would be the one note song of "That's not just ."

[aestrivex]

He will also easily strip down ideas to its key base points and concepts (Ne)

I don't know much about Richard Dawkins, and I do know that a number of descriptions by prominent Socionists describe similar skills as what you mention in their descriptions of Ne is.

However, I don't think that's what Ne is. I think, in fact, stripping down ideas to their base components is a skill that may involve a number of different IM elements.

To say that only Ne types do this, or that people do this only through the use of Ne, seems rather absurd. Surely Te also involves a stripping down to what's relevant (from a Te perspective). Surely LSIs, through Ti, also boil things down to what's relevant from their perspective. Every IM element strips things down to what's relevant to that element.

So, I believe we have to accept that a great many Socionists are wrong about this, or at least that their views inherently lead to inconsistencies and problems.

for once, i emphatically agree.


i don't know anything about dawkins. i don't think the video proves him to be Te. i don't think this particular argument is valid.

[Expat]

i don't know anything about dawkins. i don't think the video proves him to be Te. i don't think this particular argument is valid.

I never said that that particular video proves him to be Te. My whole point with the video was to show the case for Fe that Tyson was making. My mentioning my view of Dawkins as Te was unnecessary to that point.

And I agree with Jonathan's point. I think it was Augusta who first attributed that to , but I think it was more about + , and I think later socionists deviated from that definition.

[Logos]

He will also easily strip down ideas to its key base points and concepts (Ne)

I don't know much about Richard Dawkins, and I do know that a number of descriptions by prominent Socionists describe similar skills as what you mention in their descriptions of Ne is.

However, I don't think that's what Ne is. I think, in fact, stripping down ideas to their base components is a skill that may involve a number of different IM elements.

To say that only Ne types do this, or that people do this only through the use of Ne, seems rather absurd. Surely Te also involves a stripping down to what's relevant (from a Te perspective). Surely LSIs, through Ti, also boil things down to what's relevant from their perspective. Every IM element strips things down to what's relevant to that element.

So, I believe we have to accept that a great many Socionists are wrong about this, or at least that their views inherently lead to inconsistencies and problems.

You are right of course, but you nonetheless miss my point. It is Ne as a function of generalization as resultant from lateral abstract thinking and imaging. That is what I mean by ideas which are stripped down to base points and concepts.

[Phaedrus]

If Einstein was an objectivist, he would have obviously not been so reluctant to abandon his system of the universe for one that presupposed a dice-gambling God ("universe"), despite the evidence otherwise which highly suggested the validity of quantum mechanics.

In essence quantum mechanics is a Subjectivistic world view. Einstein's view of the universe is, in essence, an externalistic world view, and if you are an externalist you don't want the universe to be like it is supposed to according to quantum mechanics.

In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is a very clear expression of a Subjectivistic world view, you don't even ask yourself questions such as: What is the world really like? What is the world's essential structure apart from our observations of it? To an externalist these questions should be asked, and that was what Einstein insisted on. The world must have an existence and a structure in itself, independently of our observations of it.

Then there is the hidden agenda that showed how much he loved the spotlight, and his clear need of for his all-too-wandering .

Could you elaborate a bit on that?

[Expat]

If Einstein was an objectivist, he would have obviously not been so reluctant to abandon his system of the universe for one that presupposed a dice-gambling God ("universe"), despite the evidence otherwise which highly suggested the validity of quantum mechanics. He swam in possibilities, potential, and theory.

That is precisely my view.

Which contradicts this:

In essence quantum mechanics is a Subjectivistic world view. Einstein's view of the universe is, in essence, an externalistic world view, and if you are an externalist you don't want the universe to be like it is supposed to according to quantum mechanics.

If you're , it's not about how you "want" the world to be. It's about how the world actually is - according to the available evidence. However, in Bill Clinton's immortal phrase, "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is" is". For astronomers in the Roman Empire who could very accurately predict eclipses using Ptolomy's complex geocentrical model of the solar system, I would argue that to (in hindsight, erroneously) accept that the sun and the planets orbited the Earth was totally consistent with a perspective. It seemed to fit the available evidence, and you even had a consistent model to fit it and seemingly confirm it. However, for a perspective, for the purposes and information of the time, whether the planets and the sun orbited the Earth or not was of secondary importance to what you could actually do with that information (navigate the seas, predict eclipses, the phases of the moon, etc etc). So their "is" was incorrect, but it was "correct" according to the available evidence.

Likewise, a perspective of quantum theory is that it accurately predicts experimental observations and allows you to predict spectrographical analyses of elements, design nuclear devices, etc. can't deny anything related to what is actually working. So things like a discussion between the Copenhagen interpretation and Many-Worlds-Interpretation are interesting to try to take it to the next level, but a perspective is not about "preferring" one over the other. Just like it makes no sense to "prefer" a geocentrical model over a heliocentrical model of the solar system. A "preference" with no base on evidence is already .

The world must have an existence and a structure in itself, independently of our observations of it.

Come on. That sentence is a textbook definition of .

[Gilly]

Irony: in his criticism of Dawkins's failure to emphasize one aspect of Fe, Tyson fails miserably in utilizing another.

I think what Expat is really trying to demonstrate here is that, regardless of their actual types, the two people shown speaking are demonstrating two sides of a typical Fe vs. Te debate.

[Expat]

Irony: in his criticism of Dawkins's failure to emphasize one aspect of Fe, Tyson fails miserably in utilizing another.

What do you mean?

I think what Expat is really trying to demonstrate here is that, regardless of their actual types, the two people shown speaking are demonstrating two sides of a typical Fe vs. Te debate.

That's precisely it. As I said, my mentioning a view of Dawkins's type was unnecessary.

[Phaedrus]

If Einstein was an objectivist, he would have obviously not been so reluctant to abandon his system of the universe for one that presupposed a dice-gambling God ("universe"), despite the evidence otherwise which highly suggested the validity of quantum mechanics. He swam in possibilities, potential, and theory.

That is precisely my view.

Which contradicts this:

In essence quantum mechanics is a Subjectivistic world view. Einstein's view of the universe is, in essence, an externalistic world view, and if you are an externalist you don't want the universe to be like it is supposed to according to quantum mechanics.

Not necessarily. It is still an open question whether a Subjectivist can have an externalistic world view. Einstein's world view was clearly externalistic, but he could have such a view and still be an ENTp. That is what I would like an explanation of, if we assume that Einstein really was an ENTp.

The world must have an existence and a structure in itself, independently of our observations of it.

Come on. That sentence is a textbook definition of .

Which exact passages in which exact textbooks? I am genuinely interested in having a look at those.

[Expat]

The world must have an existence and a structure in itself, independently of our observations of it.

Come on. That sentence is a textbook definition of .

Which exact passages in which exact textbooks? I am genuinely interested in having a look at those.

I did not mean it so literally, so I will concede that I shouldn't have used that expression.

But before I try to dig up references, I suppose this means that you disagree that that is one definition of ?

[Phaedrus]

The world must have an existence and a structure in itself, independently of our observations of it.

Come on. That sentence is a textbook definition of .

Which exact passages in which exact textbooks? I am genuinely interested in having a look at those.

I did not mean it so literally, so I will concede that I shouldn't have used that expression.

But before I try to dig up references, I suppose this means that you disagree that that is one definition of ?

Yes. If it really is a definition of it would have potentially huge consequences for my understanding of Socionics in general and the types of various philosophers in particular.

What is your personal position on this? Do you believe in the existence of an external world that has a structure in itself independently of our knowledge of that structure?

[aestrivex]

this is an interesting debate. i think its ultimately a question of semantics; it's hard to deny that the universe has some structural laws (ie the laws of physics clearly appear to exist). the finer details of this structure will definitely vary between Ni and Ti types based on different conceptions of reality, and upon hearing a detailed perspective one should be able to identify it as one of the two (or something else).

in brief, i would see a Ti structure as being more defined by a very abstract rules of physics without a clear conception of the general picture, whereas an Ni type might view the universe as a whole as one large thing that is reality and seek to explore its significance by examining its subsystems.

[Phaedrus]

in brief, i would see a Ti structure as being more defined by a very abstract rules of physics without a clear conception of the general picture, whereas an Ni type might view the universe as a whole as one large thing that is reality and seek to explore its significance by examining its subsystems.

That pretty well captures how I see the differences from my leading Ni perspective.

[Expat]

What is your personal position on this? Do you believe in the existence of an external world that has a structure in itself independently of our knowledge of that structure?

I do not understand the point of the question. Obviously things will exist independently of whether we know them or not. Pluto's moon Charon existed millions of years before it was spotted, relatively recently. Relativity "existed" before Einstein discovered it. And so on. So I have to assume that there are natural laws, celestial bodies, etc etc that we are not aware of but may be some day. I guess that mankind will be extinct before many of them are discovered. Obviously I don't think that the existence of anything is dependent of our knowledge of it.

What I disagree with is precisely things like Einstein's "God plays no dice with the universe" especially as an argument to reject the Copenhagen interpretation. Of course he may have been right on that particular point, but I don't see it as a necessity. You have said that you find it "repelling". I do not find it so at all. I may find it wrong, unlikely, half-baked, but I don't have any particular "stake" at its being correct or not.

Things like the Copenhagen interpretation must be rejected by empirical data or logical inconsistencies; not by sweeping arguments like it "can't be right" because "God doesn't play dice with the universe". My comment is the same as Bohr's: don't tell God what to do.

[Gilly]

Irony: in his criticism of Dawkins's failure to emphasize one aspect of Fe, Tyson fails miserably in utilizing another.

What do you mean?

Basically that Tyson was stumbling over his words and sounded downright nervous, despite the fact that he had legitimate criticism to give.

[Logos]

Not necessarily. It is still an open question whether a Subjectivist can have an externalistic world view.

Why do you think that?

Einstein's world view was clearly externalistic, but he could have such a view and still be an ENTp.

And why do you apply that with Einstein?

That is what I would like an explanation of, if we assume that Einstein really was an ENTp.

You said it yourself, if you want a system, just read Immanuel Kant, because Einstein operates on a very Kantian view of the universe.

The world must have an existence and a structure in itself, independently of our observations of it.

Come on. That sentence is a textbook definition of .

Which exact passages in which exact textbooks? I am genuinely interested in having a look at those.

Kant again: phenomenon and noumenon. :wink:

[Expat]

I want to elaborate more on this.

The world must have an existence and a structure in itself, independently of our observations of it.

Come on. That sentence is a textbook definition of .

What I meant is that the very concept that something "must" have an structure, regardless of observations, already feels like a concept to me. Anything that "must" exist despite any information is already , and even as far as is concerned, it seems to me more + than + .

Personally I don't much care whether the world has an existence and a structure in itself, independently of our observations. To that question, I will always go *shrug* and say, "I don't know".

I think can lead to certainty of being right, but always regarding things derived from information and observations, even second-hand ones.

[Blaze]

-2 diamond.

gimme a break?

[aestrivex]

-2 diamond.

gimme a break?

-3 more for caring

[Phaedrus]

Obviously things will exist independently of whether we know them or not. Pluto's moon Charon existed millions of years before it was spotted, relatively recently. Relativity "existed" before Einstein discovered it. And so on. So I have to assume that there are natural laws, celestial bodies, etc etc that we are not aware of but may be some day. I guess that mankind will be extinct before many of them are discovered. Obviously I don't think that the existence of anything is dependent of our knowledge of it.

From what you say here it is obvious that you are a Realist in the philosophical meaning of that term. You accept tertium non datur (that there are only two truth values -- true and false), you see truth as correspondence with reality, you are an Objectivist in contrast to a Relativist/Subjectivist, and you have an externalist's perspective in general. Externalism is perhaps not necessarily, but very naturally, linked to being an Objectivist in Reinin's terminology. And the above also means that it would be logically inconsistent of you (on philosophical grounds) to accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, as it entails some form of anti-realism.

What I disagree with is precisely things like Einstein's "God plays no dice with the universe" especially as an argument to reject the Copenhagen interpretation. Of course he may have been right on that particular point, but I don't see it as a necessity. You have said that you find it "repelling". I do not find it so at all. I may find it wrong, unlikely, half-baked, but I don't have any particular "stake" at its being correct or not.

That is expected. The reasons I find it repelling are philosophical. Most physicists don't care about the philosophical consequences of their views. But there are such consequences, and a Realist cannot accect the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics as the final theory. Einstein realized that, and he was correct about it.

Things like the Copenhagen interpretation must be rejected by empirical data or logical inconsistencies; not by sweeping arguments like it "can't be right" because "God doesn't play dice with the universe".

Exactly my point too.

[consentingadult]

If you have half an hour to spare, watch this episode of "The Big Question":

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13NPZ5Nv_fc[/youtube]

For what Socionics is worth: he's not an original thinker, just citing other people's discoveries and not adding anything to it, as one would expect of NT type people. So Te void of Ni (as in ST) makes sense (ESTj).

But what I find disturbing about him, is his gentle speech and his 'religious' approach to atheism, which suggests Keirsey style NF to me. He's an advocate of the ideas of others, Darwin's in particular. Perhaps an ENFp trying to be ENTp?

Who was Huxley again? Wasn't Huxley called 'Darwin's Bulldog'?? Isn't Dawkins?? :wink:

[Phaedrus]

Not necessarily. It is still an open question whether a Subjectivist can have an externalistic world view.

Why do you think that?

What do you mean? It is up to you to try to show that it is possible. I don't want it to be possible, but maybe it is.

Einstein's world view was clearly externalistic, but he could have such a view and still be an ENTp.

And why do you apply that with Einstein?

That was a typo. What I intended to ask was this: Could Einstein really be an ENTp and have an externalistic world view? Can an ENTp be an externalist? And if so, what is the socionic explanation for externalism as opposed to internalism? I claim that INTjs are naturally drawn to internalistic views on a lot of things. For example they tend to have an internalistic view on the concept knowledge, and they tend to be internalists in regard to the concept of free will. Kant is clearly an internalist.

You said it yourself, if you want a system, just read Immanuel Kant, because Einstein operates on a very Kantian view of the universe.

In what sense do you think that Einstein's view of the universe is Kantian?

The world must have an existence and a structure in itself, independently of our observations of it.

Come on. That sentence is a textbook definition of .

Which exact passages in which exact textbooks? I am genuinely interested in having a look at those.

Kant again: phenomenon and noumenon. :wink:

Kant is, in essence, an Idealist. His philosophical system is relativistic and subjectivistic, and it is inconsistent with the premise that the world must have an existence and a structure in itself, independently of our observations of it. Kant's philosophy is a form of internalism according to which it is precisely the fact that we observe the world, and how we do it, that is relevant. Kan't was not a Realist in the sense that I, Expat, and Einstein are Realists.

[Logos]

Not necessarily. It is still an open question whether a Subjectivist can have an externalistic world view.

Why do you think that?

What do you mean? It is up to you to try to show that it is possible. I don't want it to be possible, but maybe it is.

Well you have not explained what you mean by an externalistic view, and you have not explained why it would not be possible for a Subjectivist to have one, or why it would be something which would necessarily belong to just Objectivists.

Einstein's world view was clearly externalistic, but he could have such a view and still be an ENTp.

And why do you apply that with Einstein?

That was a typo. What I intended to ask was this: Could Einstein really be an ENTp and have an externalistic world view? Can an ENTp be an externalist? And if so, what is the socionic explanation for externalism as opposed to internalism?

Leading function. Thank you, come again.

I claim that INTjs are naturally drawn to internalistic views on a lot of things. For example they tend to have an internalistic view on the concept knowledge, and they tend to be internalists in regard to the concept of free will. Kant is clearly an internalist.

You claim a lot of things, and never why you claim what you do, and very little of what you do claim is internally logical.

You said it yourself, if you want a system, just read Immanuel Kant, because Einstein operates on a very Kantian view of the universe.

In what sense do you think that Einstein's view of the universe is Kantian?

The existence of a priori universal truths which are partially dependent upon our ability to perceive them through our perceptions via phenomenon.

Which exact passages in which exact textbooks? I am genuinely interested in having a look at those.

Kant again: phenomenon and noumenon. :wink:

Kant is, in essence, an Idealist. His philosophical system is relativistic and subjectivistic, and it is inconsistent with the premise that the world must have an existence and a structure in itself, independently of our observations of it. Kant's philosophy is a form of internalism according to which it is precisely the fact that we observe the world, and how we do it, that is relevant. Kan't was not a Realist in the sense that I, Expat, and Einstein are Realists.

Here you show that you neither understand Kant, Einstein, Expat, nor yourself.

[Blaze]

-2 diamond.

gimme a break?

-3 more for caring

lol good one!