Types and rigidity in thoughts/beliefs

[mikemex]

Hello. I was watching at a documentary and wanted to share my thoughts about it with you. It was Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.

Before of anything, I have some existing assumptions and knowledge that I think should be considered in order to understand them:

* I once read an article that was about the neurological differences between liberals and conservatives. In broad terms it stated that conservatives have stiff minds while liberals have malleable ones. This means that conservatives find it difficult to change their opinions at a chemical level (building or destroying neuron synapses), which makes them uncomfortable and ultimately resist changes.

* While "Fe" is largely considered related to emotions, from my observations I tend to see it as an information filtering function. It's purpose is to find similarities and differences between things, and when it is applied to people, it serves the purpose of finding a common ground with others.

Now... watching at the documentary I noticed that, when they spoke about the guys who committed the crime, they said they were quite isolated from the rest of the students and I spotted a pattern:

A person has a stiff mind and his or her opinions are too strong -> they dislike being around individuals who doesn't share their views -> they form a group who is ideologically homogeneous -> a feeling of belongship is established among the group.

I see both LSI and ESI doing the same thing, but it's confusing because if we follow the socionical doctrine, only LSI would appreciate Fe (=group bonding) in such a way. My only explanation is that socionics compesates by "allowing" the functions to operate at the same time, thus both ESI and LSI express that behaviour (excercize Fe and Ti). ESI expressess Fe actively and Ti passively and LSI expresses Ti actively and Fe passively. LSI is a leader, ESI is a follower, but the same hierachical system remains (Se).

[Elro]

* I once read an article that was about the neurological differences between liberals and conservatives. In broad terms it stated that conservatives have stiff minds while liberals have malleable ones. This means that conservatives find it difficult to change their opinions at a chemical level (building or destroying neuron synapses), which makes them uncomfortable and ultimately resist changes.

...

[Phaedrus]

* I once read an article that was about the neurological differences between liberals and conservatives. In broad terms it stated that conservatives have stiff minds while liberals have malleable ones. This means that conservatives find it difficult to change their opinions at a chemical level (building or destroying neuron synapses), which makes them uncomfortable and ultimately resist changes.

Stuff like that is always extremely interesting. If you by any chance have a link to that or similar articles about neurological differences, I would be happy to read it.

* While "Fe" is largely considered related to emotions, from my observations I tend to see it as an information filtering function. It's purpose is to find similarities and differences between things, and when it is applied to people, it serves the purpose of finding a common ground with others.

Well, of course is primarily an information filtering function, since it is a rational (judging) function. Ganin has explained that difference between having a leading rational or irrational function in this article: http://www.socionics.com/articles/irra.htm

[aestrivex]

...

my reaction precisely

[krieger]

If I may be allowed this soapbox...

Well, of course is primarily an information filtering function, since it is a rational (judging) function. Ganin has explained that difference between having a leading rational or irrational function in this article: http://www.socionics.com/articles/irra.htm

Ganin's views are far from the only ones available on the difference between Rationals and Irrationals, though. If you interpret the difference between the two in terms of the distribution of the Positivism and Negativism dichotomies, and with that of the Limiting and Empowering aspects of functions, you get a slightly different result with the same explanatory power: Rationals believe that the "stripped-down essence" (Limiting) of perceived objects lies on the level of the noumenom (Extrovert Perception) as opposed to on that of the phenomenom (Introvert Perception). As such, rationals refuse to attach factual judgments to observations until they know for sure that the observation in question hinted at a known and previously processed state in outer reality.

[tcaudilllg]

I like how he didn't mention psychic domain theory in the least in this post.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Stuff like that is always extremely interesting. If you by any chance have a link to that or similar articles about neurological differences, I would be happy to read it.

I've read a very detailed article on this and I've still got it but it's a hard copy.

[Phaedrus]

I've read a very detailed article on this and I've still got it but it's a hard copy.

Can you summarize the main points and conclusions in a few sentences?

[tcaudilllg]

It's this one:
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/A...re%20Neuro.pdf

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It's this one:
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/A...re%20Neuro.pdf

It's a different one dude but hopefully that one will do.

[tcaudilllg]

It's on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/02/11...nes/index.html

Let's be perfectly clear about something: this has NOTHING directly to do with classical socionics. (however, it PROVES a fragment of psychic domain theory.)

It is hugely significant though, because it says POINT BLANK THAT TYPOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS CAN BE DISCERNED IN THE HUMAN BRAIN. THEREFORE, ALL VALID PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPOLOGIES MAY BE CORRELATED TO CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BRAIN.

It's no longer speculation. It is solid, irrefutable fact. Socionics can be proven beyond doubt.

[mikemex]

It's no longer speculation. It is solid, irrefutable fact. Socionics can be proven beyond doubt.

"Beyond doubt" is faith, not reason. Everything is is questionable. I refuse to discuss anything with you as long as you keep pushing you prejudice that socionics exists without considering the alternative option that it doesn't. That it makes sense to you, and that you can match the theory with external evidence, doesn't make it any more real. It's like trying to push the idea that a god exists just because there are endless individuals who "feel its presence". That's circular thinking.

Now, you're making a mistake by misinterpreting my post. I used socionics to explain a pattern I spotted because it's a concept we all understand, but my intention was actually to disprove socionics and not confirm it.

To put it in simpler words, people thinks that a function is some kind of code that is required to process information, a lot like an MP3 decoder is needed to process an MP3 compressed file. But my post was to show that there is no need to invent the existence of a processing more called "Fe", or a concept called "Fe suggestive" or "Fe hidden agenda", in order to explain a necessity to stick with like minded individuals.

In broad terms, the key concept here is causality. Just because two things happen simultaneously it doesn't mean that they are a direct consequence of each other, or even related.

[Phaedrus]

"Beyond doubt" is faith, not reason. Everything is is questionable.

No. That 2+2 equals 4 is not questionable.

I refuse to discuss anything with you as long as you keep pushing you prejudice that socionics exists without considering the alternative option that it doesn't.

What do you mean by such nonsense? Of course Socionics exists, since we are discussing it. If Socionics is a true or a false theory is another matter that is still not settled. That you can doubt, but not that it "exists".

[Not A Communist Shill]

2+2=4

Is A Truism!

But Not All Truths Are Obvious, Obviously!

[Phaedrus]

2+2=4

Is A Truism!

It is still an unquestionable truth, and therefore your statement is false.

[Luke]

You'd need a framework to question it with.

[Not A Communist Shill]

It is still an unquestionable truth, and therefore your statement is false.

But an unquestionable truth is something which cannot be questioned! If I can question 2+2=4, then it can't be an unquestionable truth!

[Phaedrus]

But an unquestionable truth is something which cannot be questioned! If I can question 2+2=4, then it can't be an unquestionable truth!

Right. But you can't question 2+2=4.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Right. But you can't question 2+2=4.

Well, if YOU say so, then I guess that proves you right....oh, I found another Truism!

[consentingadult]

It is still an unquestionable truth, and therefore your statement is false.

Now I promised myself not to read or answer your posts, but I can't help myself, and must ask you a question:

what is your education? If that education includes mathematics on an academic level, I want to see evidence of that as well!

Any math professor will laugh in your face: "2+2=4" has nothing do to with "truth".

[Phaedrus]

Well, if YOU say so, then I guess that proves you right...

No. It is not because I say so that you can't question it. You can't question it because it is impossible to question. It is not more complicated than that, and you know it.

[mikemex]

@Phaedrus: If you think mathematically, you're right. But I think geometrically and it is false. Look at this:

[Not A Communist Shill]

No. It is not because I say so that you can't question it. You can't question it because it is impossible to question. It is not more complicated than that, and you know it.

You seem to be very good at telling people what they can't question! I thought I would know my own abilities better than you? If you already know what I know, then you must feel a bit foolish telling me what you already know I know!

[aestrivex]

It's no longer speculation. It is solid, irrefutable fact. Socionics can be proven beyond doubt.

good. go do it.

[consentingadult]

@Phaedrus: If you think mathematically, you're right.

No, especially mathematically, it's wrong, because 2+2=4 serves as an axiom:

"In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else they logically follow from (otherwise they would be classified as theorems).

Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be universally true (e.g., (A ∧ B) → A), while non-logical axioms (e.g, a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in that sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain."

(source: wikipedia on Axioms)

[FDG]

Consentingadult, propositions of that kind are intended to be with ellipses i.e. the complete proposition would be, if peano axioms are true then 2+2=4 etc etc ok? Don't overdo that Te you only end up looking as foolish as Ezra looks when he tries to appear badass.

Btw, as usual mikemex says something stupid. There are a wide variety of LSI and ESI that do not do what he describes. Guess what the difference with the "other" LSI and ESI is? Just that they're smarter! Big deal!

A quick glance at the political profiles over the liberal-conservative and P-J spectrum will show how the correlation is nonexistant. Generally democratic types (J result P process) are more neutral in terms of politics because of the reasons outlined by labcoat, whereas aristocratic types lean either more strongly to the left or to the right, but this is too complex and experimental for me to put it all out now...

[consentingadult]

Consentingadult, propositions of that kind are intended to be with ellipses i.e. the complete proposition would be, if peano axioms are true then 2+2=4 etc etc ok?

What do you expect me to do, write a book on mathematics in full detail and publish it here, so there can be no question about what I meant or not? Of course I realize that 2+2=4 is not a primary axiom. I've dicussed this with people who have a doctor's degree in mathematics, and for all intents and purposes, they present such statements as axioms, and none of them ever complained about my understanding of it. But 'for all intents and purposes' probably is not in your manual.

Don't overdo that Te you only end up looking as foolish as Ezra looks when he tries to appear badass.

You mean, as foolish as you look now for acting out your lack of Fe/Fi/Ne?

[munenori2]

No. It is not because I say so that you can't question it. You can't question it because it is impossible to question. It is not more complicated than that, and you know it.

You might look into Quine and his notions on analyticity/holism. I couldn't find a clear, concise internet source for it. The wiki-page goes into it vaguely, but the explanation could be better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dog...nd_circularity

[Phaedrus]

You might look into Quine and his notions on analyticity/holism. I couldn't find a clear, concise internet source for it. The wiki-page goes into it vaguely, but the explanation could be better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dog...nd_circularity

I have read Quine of course. The first time I studied his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" must have been around 20 years ago. I don't support a verification theory of meaning, and I believe that Quine's holism is the wrong approach too.

You might want to look into Kripke's causal theory of reference, and for example Thomas Nagel's The Last Word for an explanation why why you don't need to save analyticity by a verification theory of meaning, why statements like "2+2=4" shouldn't be interpreted along Quinean lines, and why you still cannot doubt them.