Truth about MBTI and Socionics

[Hitta]

Well theres a truth about socionics and MBTI, though its more like whats not true. Its a truth that some people fail to grasp. Socionics and MBTI is a system of thought, an isolation. It is something that is based completely on assumptive logic. God did not come down from the heavens and present this system to us. There is no divine law in this. Socionics and MBTI are completely idealistic systems. Most people out there in the MBTI and Socionics community are searching for an answer or something in this. They think they will find their type, their absolute prophecy. They think there is a type that is made just for them, and they are supposed to fit in it perfectly. There is sort of a psychological attachment to the concept of actually finding something that completely understands us, some type of perfect system that defines everything that we are. Perfection is not something that we will ever reach. This isn't saying that perfection isn't something that we should try to reach, because I believe that we should. Its just everyone seems to be placing their trust in something that never will work to absolution instead of actually placing trust in their own uniqueness. People should express whats inside themselves, not what some categorizational system tells you you are.

The truth is, a person probably fits into multiple different types. Hell, a real person probably fits into something that types do not represent. Yet, people have turned a theoretical system into something that stereotypes people. Some of you think that they understand other people before they even open their mouths. Its a epic failure. Instead of using socionics as a tool, socionics is using us as tools.

[tcaudilllg]

I agree. You have type, but are not type. Still, having a typological relationship between yourself and another definitely represents a deep sort of bond, because you know that at least in part, that person can understand you.

[Phaedrus]

None of you understand what a type really is. You confuse the system with reality.

[aestrivex]

Well theres a truth about socionics and MBTI, though its more like whats not true. Its a truth that some people fail to grasp. Socionics and MBTI is a system of thought, an isolation. It is something that is based completely on assumptive logic. God did not come down from the heavens and present this system to us. There is no divine law in this. Socionics and MBTI are completely idealistic systems. Most people out there in the MBTI and Socionics community are searching for an answer or something in this. They think they will find their type, their absolute prophecy. They think there is a type that is made just for them, and they are supposed to fit in it perfectly. There is sort of a psychological attachment to the concept of actually finding something that completely understands us, some type of perfect system that defines everything that we are. Perfection is not something that we will ever reach. This isn't saying that perfection isn't something that we should try to reach, because I believe that we should. Its just everyone seems to be placing their trust in something that never will work to absolution instead of actually placing trust in their own uniqueness. People should express whats inside themselves, not what some categorizational system tells you you are.

all of this goes without saying. nonetheless, socionics is in a number of ways a very good and very descriptive manner of classification, and your attacks on it do not really take this into account at all because it's sort of not perfect.

clearly, nothing is perfect. while you have a sufficiently antagonistic stance towards Te not to agree with me, socionics is a very good approximation and is of significant practical use (IMO).

[consentingadult]

all of this goes without saying. nonetheless, socionics is in a number of ways a very good and very descriptive manner of classification, and your attacks on it do not really take this into account at all because it's sort of not perfect.

clearly, nothing is perfect. while you have a sufficiently antagonistic stance towards Te not to agree with me, socionics is a very good approximation and is of significant practical use (IMO).

For once, I fully agree with Niffweed here. Of all pseudo- and proto-scientific theories on personality, ranging from astrology to Socionics, Socionics is the one that comes closest to the understandings reached in mainstream personality psychology (which is a far more complex body of knowledge than Socionics is), and, as far as I can tell, the only one that is not fundamentally in conflict with insights on personality pathology, although different terminology is often used.

Hitta, the deal is that Socionics will not solve your problems for you, but it will give you some tools that will allow you to work towards a more fulfilling life. Ultimately, nobody is coming to save you, you have to do it yourself. Despite your claim, I and others have been and are using Socionics as a tool (and with satisfying results), not the other way around

[Hitta]

Socionics is an overly idealized theory. There is not a person on this forum that fits solely into one type. Hell, theres not a person in reality that fits into one type. People are not gonna figure out their absolute selves with this theory, though it might trigger something that may cause that, I really don't know).

When I hear quotes like "Omg Beta Fe" or something that is talking about a characterization of something, I get thoroughly annoyed. The thing with the relationships is the worst. When people say that they don't get along because one person is a certain type. Its fucking retarded stereotypes. A lot of people make decisions of people based just on their types. They automatically decide that they don't like someone because they have conflicting types. Types are abstract concepts that do not precisely fit reality, its not like we have some stamp on your brain that says ESTp or ISTp. We are all individuals with complex emotions and thought patterns. People don't get along, or people do things because of who they are, not because they have little black squares and white triangles coming out of their mouths.

[Phaedrus]

There is not a person on this forum that fits solely into one type. Hell, theres not a person in reality that fits into one type.

Utterly stupid and false statements like these are nothing but pukeworthy. They reveal that the person behind them understands nothing.

Types are abstract concepts that do not precisely fit reality, its not like we have some stamp on your brain that says ESTp or ISTp.

Types are real, objective structures that exist independent of any theory or model, including Socionics. Whether you are an ESTp or an ISTp is determined by your brain's structure.

[consentingadult]

Socionics is an overly idealized theory. There is not a person on this forum that fits solely into one type. Hell, theres not a person in reality that fits into one type. People are not gonna figure out their absolute selves with this theory, though it might trigger something that may cause that, I really don't know).

When I hear quotes like "Omg Beta Fe" or something that is talking about a characterization of something, I get thoroughly annoyed. The thing with the relationships is the worst. When people say that they don't get along because one person is a certain type. Its fucking retarded stereotypes. A lot of people make decisions of people based just on their types. They automatically decide that they don't like someone because they have conflicting types. Types are abstract concepts that do not precisely fit reality, its not like we have some stamp on your brain that says ESTp or ISTp. We are all individuals with complex emotions and thought patterns. People don't get along, or people do things because of who they are, not because they have little black squares and white triangles coming out of their mouths.

well, from what you are writing, I can only conclude that it is you who is trying to get too much out of Socionics, like it is a theory of personality. It is not a system of personality, but of psychological type. That's what is so good aboutclassical Socionics: that it, contrary to MBTI, tries to stick with the essences of psychological types, and tries not to add unrelated bull shit, such as 'ENFPs usually have a wide circle of friends', which are theoretical fabrications. Also contrary to all those logical types on this forum who invent stuff such as dual-type theory, supersocion theory etc.etc. If you realize that Socionic type is just a small part of personality (but an important part anyway), that there are many other complicated factors, such as culture, pathology, situational circumstances etc.etc., involved, you're fine.

[Hitta]

Utterly stupid and false statements like these are nothing but pukeworthy. They reveal that the person behind them understands nothing.


Types are real, objective structures that exist independent of any theory or model, including Socionics. Whether you are an ESTp or an ISTp is determined by your brain's structure.

Are you mentally retarded? That is the dumbest thing I think I've ever heard. You are attached to something that isn't provable. Its like a religion or something to you. A way of life.

[mikemex]

@Hitta:

You don't seem to understand that typology is a way to present and structure information and not the information itself. Even if Socionics was completely flawed, say, neither functions nor types had direct correspondence with reality, it is still a more convenient way to categorize people than the traditional method of psychology in which there is virtually an endless spectrum of possibilities.

[Hitta]

@Hitta:

You don't seem to understand that typology is a way to present and structure information and not the information itself. Even if Socionics was completely flawed, say, neither functions nor types had direct correspondence with reality, it is still a more convenient way to categorize people than the traditional method of psychology in which there is virtually an endless spectrum of possibilities.

This system doesn't change the fact that there is infinite possibilities. Its not like the possibilities jump out the window because this system exists. They are still there. Socionics is an abstraction, it doesn't fit people closely enough to truly understand someone. You can't prove that extraverted intuition or extraverted feeling exist as if it is a categorical thing. There are no categories, there is no provable objective truth for us to know this way. Truth is something that fits everything, and there is nothing a person can think of that fits everything unless it is something that is not defined by reality. People are possibly much more deep than this system is capable of predicting. Socionics is a theory and only a theory.

[Phaedrus]

Are you mentally retarded? That is the dumbest thing I think I've ever heard. You are attached to something that isn't provable. Its like a religion or something to you. A way of life.

You are really dumb if you believe that the differences between the types are not caused by different brain structures. I am an empiricist, and contrary to you I have a scientific approach to all this. I rely on what can be verified by empiricial observations (or falsified by it). You refuse to look at empirical reality and instead believe in your own (incorrect) interpretation of a model. (That is the only argument in favour of your claim that you are an INTj, by the way).

[Hitta]

You are really dumb if you believe that the differences between the types are not caused by different brain structures. I am an empiricist, and contrary to you I have a scientific approach to all this. I rely on what can be verified by empiricial observations (or falsified by it). You refuse to look at empirical reality and instead believe in your own (incorrect) interpretation of a model. (That is the only argument in favour of your claim that you are an INTj, by the way).

Well there isn't a person on the Planet who doesn't think that what they are doing or what they believe is right. And I never said that different brain structures didn't cause differences in people that may cause someone to think they are a different type. You are putting words in my mouth. How are you gonna come to the conclusion that a type is absolute? What exactly are you basing it on? Do you have some type of bible that know one else has ever seen before? Also, the way that you use the word empiricist is incorrect. You are confusing empiricism with an objective type of way at looking at the world. Empiricism is actually a subjectivist branch of philosophy and science, in that we can only know what we see. Empiricist use probably, and repetition of certain things happening in the world to create theories and ideologies. We are all empiricists if you want to be technical about it. Empiricists are not absolute truth thinkers. I don't know who in the hell told you this or where in the hell you got that notion from, but it is a big load of bullshit.

For some reason you believe you have the truth for some reason, like you are subject to something else that everyone else doesn't see. You make assumptions and consider them to be absolute, then you call everyone else idiots for not considering what you believe law. How do you come to the conclusion that something is an objective fact? Its as if you are taking a bunch of your assumptions, and have turned them into some religion of absolute fact. Faith? Faith in your own reason, faith that whatever you believe will always be absolute. Just like the religions around the world you believe in something that is not absolute, then you try to force it down peoples throats as if its the truth. You are nothing but a scam, a simple con-artist. A mere shadow of truth. You believe as if you have come to a complete understanding of existence, and have left no reason for questioning or curiosity. You are a convinced man, I hope you die happy.

[Hitta]

I like Phaedrus, his stupidity makes me feel godlike.

[Phaedrus]

This system doesn't change the fact that there is infinite possibilities.

There are not infinite possibilities in reality. That is total relativistic bullshit crap. But of course there are infite possibilities for you to draw incorrect conclusions and for your brain to go spinning.

You can't prove that extraverted intuition or extraverted feeling exist as if it is a categorical thing.

You insist on keeping your eyes closed. You refuse to observe reality directly. Extraverted intuition and etraverted feeling are not theoretical constructs. They are empirical phenomena that have been observed long before Socionics as a theory was constructed. The types were not invented by Socionics. We have known them for centuries.

There are no categories, there is no provable objective truth for us to know this way.

Relativistic idiot. The types are observable real essences. It is not up to us to decide which categories to choose. Reality chooses them for us.

Truth is something that fits everything, and there is nothing a person can think of that fits everything unless it is something that is not defined by reality.

Relativistic bullshit.

People are possibly much more deep than this system is capable of predicting. Socionics is a theory and only a theory.

But the types exist in themselves independent of Socionics.

[Phaedrus]

Well there isn't a person on the Planet who doesn't think that what they are doing or what they believe is right.

Well, there is at least one -- you. That conclusion is a logically necessary consequence of your premises.

How are you gonna come to the conclusion that a type is absolute? What exactly are you basing it on?

We can see the types directly by looking at reality (empirical observations).

Do you have some type of bible that know one else has ever seen before?

I don't close my eyes.

Also, the way that you use the word empiricist is incorrect. You are confusing empiricism with an objective type of way at looking at the world. Empiricism is actually a subjectivist branch of philosophy and science, in that we can only know what we see.

That's why I don't blindly accept a theory like you do. Instead I believe what I can observe, what I can see. And I can see the types directly in the people I meet. I know that types exist because I can observe them.

Empiricist use probably, and repetition of certain things happening in the world to create theories and ideologies. We are all empiricists if you want to be technical about it.

Wrong. INTjs are not empiricists. INTjs are natural born anti-empiricists (idealists, rationalists, anti-realists, relativists, social constructionists -- the same fundamental anti-empiricist attitude comes in different shades and shapes and has many names).

Empiricists are not absolute truth thinkers.

Wrong. If we don't accept the notion an "absolute (objective) truth", we cannot be wrong. That's the essence of relativism -- that you are always right because you cannot be proven wrong. Empiricism is the complete opposite to such an attitude. Science is based on the notion of an absolute truth. Science is all about finding the objective truth. If you are opposed to objective truths, you are opposed to science. Again, that is a trademark of INTjs, and your totally unscientific attitude is the only thing about you that indicates that you could be an INTj.

I don't know who in the hell told you this or where in the hell you got that notion from, but it is a big load of bullshit.

I am an expert on this, whereas you are a brainwashed beginner. Listen and learn.

For some reason you believe you have the truth for some reason, like you are subject to something else that everyone else doesn't see. You make assumptions and consider them to be absolute, then you call everyone else idiots for not considering what you believe law. How do you come to the conclusion that something is an objective fact?

I see that it is an objective fact. The difference between me and some others is that I keep my eyes open instead of closed. I evaluate the evidence, and I evaluate it objectively. And then I test hypotheses -- something you never do. You always refuse to compare your hypotheses with reality -- I always do that before I come to a conclusion.

Its as if you are taking a bunch of your assumptions, and have turned them into some religion of absolute fact.

It might look that way to you, because you can't see the tests I have done, you can't see the empirical investigations I have performed, and you can't see the research I have done in order to reach the general conclusions that are the inevitable consequence of all that research.

[Hitta]

There are not infinite possibilities in reality. That is total relativistic bullshit crap. But of course there are infite possibilities for you to draw incorrect conclusions and for your brain to go spinning.


You insist on keeping your eyes closed. You refuse to observe reality directly. Extraverted intuition and etraverted feeling are not theoretical constructs. They are empirical phenomena that have been observed long before Socionics as a theory was constructed. The types were not invented by Socionics. We have known them for centuries.


Relativistic idiot. The types are observable real essences. It is not up to us to decide which categories to choose. Reality chooses them for us.


Relativistic bullshit.


But the types exist in themselves independent of Socionics.

The Preacher has spoken. We must accept it. This is what true faith is. We can not question truth. It has been written by Phaedrus as to what objective truth is. Only Phaedrus knows the way. So we must put our trust in the god, Phaedrus. Let us bow our heads. And pray.

Lord God, creator of all truth, we ask of you to grant us your wisdom, so that we can better succeed through our lives. And though you have yet to tell us why we are here, or where "here" exactly is, we will not question you. We know that you are the true thinker, the supreme being. You see through the illusions of life and grant us peace of mind. We ask in your name to continue to grant us this peace and prosperity; and to continue to give little snippets of truth every now and then like you do.

We pray to the Lord, Phaedrus. Amen.

[Phaedrus]

The Preacher has spoken. We must accept it.

Yes, the Preacher has spoken. And you must accept the facts.

This is what true faith is. We can not question truth.

Anyone can question the truth, but questioning a true statement doesn't somehow magically turn it into a false statement. You can question something on good grounds, or you can question it on bad grounds or no grounds at all. People who are questioning true statements are of course wrong, and people who are questioning true statements for the wrong reasons are idiots. You fit in both those categories.

It has been written by Phaedrus as to what objective truth is. Only Phaedrus knows the way.

No, I am not the only one who knows the truth and can separete facts from superstitions.

So we must put our trust in the god, Phaedrus. Let us bow our heads. And pray.

Do that if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't suffice to save you.

Lord God, creator of all truth, we ask of you to grant us your wisdom, so that we can better succeed through our lives. And though you have yet to tell us why we are here, or where "here" exactly is, we will not question you.

Good. You will make a nice little puppet.

We know that you are the true thinker, the supreme being.

No, you don't know it. You only believe it -- on unsufficient grounds.

[crazedrat]

uh..
well, typology is in the process of being expanded upon to further fit the details of reality. that being said, it reflects reality at this point.. it merely has not been understood how it specificly reflects reality. if you think of it abstractly, then you are thinking about typology as a word game. at this point it is not reflecting reality accurately, but it is defining itself. if you are thinking about typology in how it applies to the world, then phaedrus is right. it depends on which typology you are thinking of ... but even then, if you are looking at the world and calling the world "typology".. the word you are using has still yet to be properly defined.. so i don't necessarily see the point in using a word at all. it is like if i just learned what the word ball meant, so i called the sun a ball. uh... and i also called basketball a ball. what is the point in saying ball then? i am only talking about the roundness of the sun and the basketball, but not about the heat the sun gives off; and heat is an inseperable part of the sun, but has no relation to the basketball. in this way all the word ball does is show me where to look, it .. gives a starting point for a thought in that particular situation. but the word ball itself is not completely reflecting what is real, only the thing it is being applied to is reality. without the situation at hand, the word ball gives me no way of specifying whether i am talking about the sun or the basketball ... so err.. what is in question is, if i use the word typology, the system of typology as something isolated and abstract.
if we were saying something like "that person there is ISTP" and hitta was to say "no, they are too specific to be ISTP. ISTP doesn't fully explain them"... this is kind of like saying "no, the sun is not a ball.. it is more then a ball". But then how is it possible for the sun to be more then a ball if a ball is what the sun is?
The answer I think is, again, there are two ways of thinking about the word ball. 1 is to think of it as an abstract concept- the similarities between the sun and a basketball and anything else you want to call a ball define the word ball. The second way is to think of it as a specific concept- the sun is a ball (or more properly, it is the sun).. and anything new you find out about the sun is still part of the sun, and is still properly refered to as part of "that ball" ...
so err..
yeah, the problem is one is an abstract way of thinking and the other is a specific way of thinking.

[Phaedrus]

uh..
well, typology is in the process of being expanded upon to further fit the details of reality. that being said, it reflects reality at this point.. it merely has not been understood how it specificly reflects reality. if you think of it abstractly, then you are thinking about typology as a word game. at this point it is not reflecting reality accurately, but it is defining itself. if you are thinking about typology in how it applies to the world, then phaedrus is right. it depends on which typology you are thinking of ... but even then, if you are looking at the world and calling the world "typology".. the word you are using has still yet to be properly defined.. so i don't necessarily see the point in using a word at all. it is like if i just learned what the word ball meant, so i called the sun a ball. uh... and i also called basketball a ball. what is the point in saying ball then? i am only talking about the roundness of the sun and the basketball, but not about the heat the sun gives off; and heat is an inseperable part of the sun, but has no relation to the basketball. in this way all the word ball does is show me where to look, it .. gives a starting point for a thought in that particular situation. but the word ball itself is not real, only the thing it is being applied to. ... so err... i think hitta is more right here.

As usual, most INTps understand this correctly. We seem to be one of few types that can see the difference between reality and a model of reality and understand what such a difference means.

[crazedrat]

i do think abstract thinking is a fallacy. but i am thinking that thought abstractly ...
alot has been talked about this in articles- about the XXXx thought process being a kind of adaptive and situational thought process.
which is easily confused with sensing, but it is not sensing. sensing still implies abstraction ...
the easiest way to reach this state of mind is through meditation. i've been trying this recently, and i have noticed some interesting happenings during the half hour or so following my meditation sessions. namely, my ability to socialize with types deemed unfavorable increases in a way i would almost think we are mentally connecting.. something which is just weird for me. i also find i'll, instead of thinking about doing something- that the act of thinking merges with doing, and that i will be doing and thinking in union. ...

[Hitta]

As usual, most INTps understand this correctly. We seem to be one of few types that can see the difference between reality and a model of reality and understand what such a difference means.

Its not a model of reality though. It was created by people. Its not divine truth. This is nothing more than a model of supposed reality. You can't prove this stuff is right.

[Hitta]

uh..
well, typology is in the process of being expanded upon to further fit the details of reality. that being said, it reflects reality at this point.. it merely has not been understood how it specificly reflects reality. if you think of it abstractly, then you are thinking about typology as a word game. at this point it is not reflecting reality accurately, but it is defining itself. if you are thinking about typology in how it applies to the world, then phaedrus is right. it depends on which typology you are thinking of ... but even then, if you are looking at the world and calling the world "typology".. the word you are using has still yet to be properly defined.. so i don't necessarily see the point in using a word at all. it is like if i just learned what the word ball meant, so i called the sun a ball. uh... and i also called basketball a ball. what is the point in saying ball then? i am only talking about the roundness of the sun and the basketball, but not about the heat the sun gives off; and heat is an inseperable part of the sun, but has no relation to the basketball. in this way all the word ball does is show me where to look, it .. gives a starting point for a thought in that particular situation. but the word ball itself is not completely reflecting what is real, only the thing it is being applied to is reality. without the situation at hand, the word ball gives me no way of specifying whether i am talking about the sun or the basketball ... so err.. what is in question is, if i use the word typology, the system of typology as something isolated and abstract.
if we were saying something like "that person there is ISTP" and hitta was to say "no, they are too specific to be ISTP. ISTP doesn't fully explain them"... this is kind of like saying "no, the sun is not a ball.. it is more then a ball". But then how is it possible for the sun to be more then a ball if a ball is what the sun is?
The answer I think is, again, there are two ways of thinking about the word ball. 1 is to think of it as an abstract concept- the similarities between the sun and a basketball and anything else you want to call a ball define the word ball. The second way is to think of it as a specific concept- the sun is a ball (or more properly, it is the sun).. and anything new you find out about the sun is still part of the sun, and is still properly refered to as part of "that ball" ...
so err..
yeah, the problem is one is an abstract way of thinking and the other is a specific way of thinking.

We expand it because it isn't perfect. Its impossible for it to be perfect, well at least in our current stage of evolutionary perception. It can keep being improved and improved and improved to come more close to fitting reality. There are infinite possibilities though(something that Phaedrus can't seem to get his mind around). There is always something else that can be improved. Its really impossible to model reality perfectly.

[crazedrat]

right. but that is only if you are thinking of it abstractly. it already exists, perfect, when you look at the world. its just that we don't have names to describe it completely fleshed out. furthermore, as the names we do have became fleshed out they would not be overturned, but simply expanded on. the sun would still be a ball, it would just be a flaming ball.. etc.
it is impossible to abstractly model specific information in such a way where you merge the abstract and the specific. this is true because the definitions of abstract and specific innately make this impossible. instead you would simply look at reality and see that it is already modeled for you; and that the conclusion is in front of your eyes; and that this model is neither specific nor abstract, but that it simply exists.
there is nothing specific about reality unless you have an abstraction from which to view the world. the word specific implies the existence of an abstraction.
so as you look at the world you can think to yourself "everything is different in some way", but only if you are accepting that things can be the same. the truth is that everything can be both different and the same depending on how you view it. for this reason it is impossible to say "there are infinite possibilities in reality"; this is only true in light of you viewing the world as finite. if you are viewing the world as infinite, then things appear finite. you can take one thing, and look at it in a million ways.. or you can take a million things and look at them in one way.

[Hitta]

right. but that is only if you are thinking of it abstractly. it already exists, perfect, when you look at the world. its just that we don't have names to describe it completely fleshed out. furthermore, as the names we do have became fleshed out they would not be overturned, but simply expanded on. the sun would still be a ball, it would just be a flaming ball.. etc.
it is impossible to abstractly model specific information in such a way where you merge the abstract and the specific. this is true because the definitions of abstract and specific innately make this impossible. instead you would simply look at reality and see that it is already modeled for you; and that the conclusion is in front of your eyes; and that this model is neither specific nor abstract, but that it simply exists.
there is nothing specific about reality unless you have an abstraction from which to view the world. the word specific implies the existence of an abstraction.
so as you look at the world you can think to yourself "everything is different in some way", but only if you are accepting that things can be the same. the truth is that everything can be both different and the same depending on how you view it. for this reason it is impossible to say "there are infinite possibilities in reality"; this is only true in light of you viewing the world as finite. if you are viewing the world as infinite, then things appear finite. you can take one thing, and look at it in a million ways.. or you can take a million things and look at them in one way.

Reality(the model in which you are referring two) and the abstract model though are two different things. Yes reality is a model that we understand with our own eyes. But when you start believe something that someone else wrote because its based on a system, you do not come to truth. Also, perspective is a subjective thing. Subjectivity isn't objective. Its not like its going to work from all universal perspectives.

[Phaedrus]

Its not a model of reality though. It was created by people. Its not divine truth. This is nothing more than a model of supposed reality.

This is a very clear and typical example of how a person who does not understand the difference between reality and a model of reality tend to express their ideas. Notice the "self-evident" (but false) assumption that just because we cannot know for sure what objective reality is like, the model we have created cannot be a model of reality. What such expressions reveal is that the person behind them cannot make a logical distinction between reality and the language in which thoughts about reality are expressed. If you can't make that logical distinction, you cannot understand the difference between truth and knowledge either. Neither can you understand the concept truth correctly, because the concept truth presupposes the logical distinction between a model of reality and reality itself. And such incorrect thinking usually leads the the widespread disease that is called relativism.

You can't prove this stuff is right.

And this is another extremely typical expression of the same incorrect thinking. Notice the insistence on proofs for everything. The logical mistake here is to assume that if a statement cannot be proven to be true, it is not true (or even cannot be true). I have explained this in detail before, so I am not going to do it again here, but you can find the relevant material in for example my posts in the long thread about Huitzilopochtli's type.

Huitzilopochtli is an obvious and very clear example of an INTj, and despite his high IQ, neither does he understand this crucial logical distinction between reality and a model of reality. The typical thinking of most INTjs is in direct conflict with Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems, but it seems to be very difficult to make the INTjs understand that it is a proven fact that they are wrong, and that their thinking is incorrect and muddled.

The fact that hitta is so obstinate and holds on to this incorrect relativist thinking by all means might lead me to have to reconsider the possibility that he could be an INTj, or at least some ego type, despite his non-INTj body type, V.I. look, and non-IJ temperament. Maybe he just can't describe his own behaviour correctly.

[Phaedrus]

Yes reality is a model that we understand with our own eyes.

And here's yet another very clear example of the totally incorrect and muddled thinking I am talking about. Reality itself is not a model, but many INTjs insist that it is. A person who believes that reality is a model simply does not understand the concept reality. There is a logical distinction between a model and what the model represents, but that logical distinction seems to be impossible for an INTj to grasp. INTjs are born intellectually inferior in this respect. They probably can't help it.

But when you start believe something that someone else wrote because its based on a system, you do not come to truth. Also, perspective is a subjective thing. Subjectivity isn't objective. Its not like its going to work from all universal perspectives.

And this is a clear example of Subjectvist thinking, so if hitta is not totally brainwashed to such an extent that he is "not himself", then we probably have to accept that he can't be an INTp or some other ego type.

[Hitta]

And here's yet another very clear example of the totally incorrect and muddled thinking I am talking about. Reality itself is not a model, but many INTjs insist that it is. A person who believes that reality is a model simply does not understand the concept reality. There is a logical distinction between a model and what the model represents, but that logical distinction seems to be impossible for an INTj to grasp. INTjs are born intellectually inferior in this respect. They probably can't help it.


And this is a clear example of Subjectvist thinking, so if hitta is not totally brainwashed to such an extent that he is "not himself", then we probably have to accept that he can't be an INTp or some other ego type.

Well if you are the idealized INTp(which I think you are not), then let us all pray that no more INTps will ever be born. If this was the case, each time an INTp is born humanity would regress back on the evolutionary chain. Its as if you are unaware that you are an individual and that your mind is an objective reality that all people should accept.

[Phaedrus]

Ehhhhhh.... this part seems a little sketchy. You could have just misinterpreted what they had to say. Although its far from universal, in my experience, when many alpha NTs say that "reality is a model", they mean that our own subjective experience of reality is a theoretical model. Not that reality itself is a theoretical model.

Then why do they say otherwise? Why do the INTjs express what you suggest that they mean by saying, in fact, that reality itself is a theoretical model? That's exactly what they say. I have discussed exactly this philosophical problem with INTjs in real life, and they definitely tend to express themselves exactly in the way I have tried to describe here.

To state that our subjective experience of reality is a theoretical model is trivial. I agree with that. But the INTjs don't agree with me when I state that our subjective representation of reality (our subjective theoretical model) can, in principle, be objectively true, even if we don't know it to be true. The INTjs don't accept the correspondence theory of truth, which lies at the very bottom of scientific thinking.

The subject-object divide which you love to bring up, is one way to account for the erroneous factor of human subjectivity (humans of all types) and allows them to bring to bear the most accurate possible account of the object in question (which is devoid of traces of subjective thought as far as possible).

INTjs are naturally focused on the limitations of human subjectivity, because that is what Ti is about. Ti is totally focused on the subject and its limitations. Everything is seen from the subject's perspective, and everything is interpreted in terms of a subjective agent perspective. It is as if external reality cannot exist without a subject experiencing it. And that's why INTjs always confuse truth with knowledge. They cannot understand the concept truth as correspondence with reality.

Setting these types of parameters for questions of truth is what Ti is all about. It tells us what is possible to know, and what is impossible to know given a set of axiomatic principles.

Yes, that's exactly my point. That's what I have been trying to explain all along. And that's what people don't understand about Ti. You are proving my point here. Ti is all about what is possible to know, not about about what is true. But this logical difference seems to be impossible for an INTj to understand.

But whether any individual axiom is treated as "The Truth" is far from type related.

Wrong. It is definitely type related.

But I'm a science student, not a philosophy student, so correct me if I'm wrong.

That's what I have been trying to do here. Like so many other science students you understand the relevant aspects of this up to a certain point. But when it comes to the last step, when it comes to understanding the philosophical consequences of a certain kind of thinking and to see in what way it is fundamentally different from another kind of thinking, then you tend to miss the essence of it. To grasp the relevant philsophical implications you need to be able to think on at least one higher level of abstraction. Science students are not trained to do that, and that's why they are often rather naive in philosophical matters and tend to make logical mistakes in their reasoning.

[crazedrat]

my penis tells me i need to keep masturbating

[crazedrat]

i can't answer you, because i don't know what we mean by the word penis

[Phaedrus]

Everyone with strong understands correspondence. But two things may not necessarily correspond at every point in space and time. Without fully understanding what's behind and causing the correspondence, we can never truly understand the thing in question. This full understanding is at the essence of .

The cause of the correspondence is irrelevant. That's where the INTjs go astray. We don't need understanding, and it's not understanding that we are interested in (unless we are INTjs). We are interested in truth. Our beliefs and theories about reality may be objectively true -- even if we don't fully understand them.

From my perspective, the correspondence theory of truth is trivial.

Then you are wrong, because the correspondence theory of truth is not trivial. If it were trivial everyone would accept it. But INTjs don't accept it.

Its necessary that if two things correspond, there must be an underlying mechanism that binds them.

No. You are definitely wrong about that.

[Phaedrus]

I fundamentally disagree here. Ti is about the limitations and parameters of any given object or set of data. That's how I use Ti anyway. The subject is one such object, but it is not every object.

The subject is not an object -- at least not to an INTj. That's another point where INTjs and INTps tend to disagree. INTjs are natural born phenomenologists. INTps are natural born naturalists.

No, it's about what is possible to know given a set of axioms and the coherence of said systematizations.

That's my point. Don't you understand what I am telling you? And what you describe here, which is what is about, is totally irrelevant when we talk about truth. That's what INTjs still dont' understand. To focus on knowledge when we are discussing truth is totally beside the point.

[krieger]

So who are the compatibilists then?

[Phaedrus]

That's a very personal definition of both truth and need.

No. It's not a definition of truth at all. But it is the truth about truth. Don't disagree when you don't understand what I am talking about. You have some things to learn here.

You can't have one without the other, and that's the whole point.

Here you reveal your stupidity and incorrect thinking again. And you are definitely proving my point. INTjs are simply unable to comprehend the logical difference between truth and knowledge. And you can definitely have one without the other. If you couldn't, Gödel's incomleteness theorems would be impossible to prove. But they are proven to be true -- and you as well as everyone else have no choice but to accept that fact that Gödel was right.

(Why are all INTjs so incredibly stupid that they are unable to understand Gödel's proof and its consequences? This is very irrititating. How can it be that all INTjs are born with such an intellectual impairment?)

[crazedrat]

err.. you can have something be true and not know why or how it is true. you can also understand something which is completely untrue. (if that wasn't possible then how could you ever believe something which wasnt true)... kind of like people who understand scientology. in some ways it is the act of understanding which keeps people from seeing a part of the truth. the act of understanding happens after centering around what is to be understood. the difference between reality and fantasy is that fantasy can be understood, reality can only be observed. fantasy can be derived from reality, but once it begins to develop potential for understanding it is no longer a part of reality.. it has taken off into the realm of fantasy. it must be forgotten if your mind is to return to reality. reality cannot be understood because the act of understanding imposes structure. reality dictates the fundamental structure for all happenings. for this reason its structure is self evident in everything; and any structure created and imposed onto it is unnatural, self-confirming, and is a fantasy (this is why phaedrus is suggesting intjs are stuck in fantasy- that they are forced to rely on ti, which is essentially understanding). since we have now established this conversation is a fantasy, i suggest we all forget about it; and even this entire forum.

[Phaedrus]

err.. you can have something be true and not know why or how it is true.

Of course.

[crazedrat]

you're livin' in a fantasyyyyy~~~~~ worllllldddd~~~~~~
the most beautiful woman~~~~~~~ in the worlllddddd~~~~~~~

[suoko]

Everyone fits to some of the 16 personality types, and if one understands the functions and their directions, one also understands there is no other way. Socionics also offers pictures to us, that additionally helps, and both together will give the complete understanding.

What Socionics produced to the top of the MBTI, was at least the correction when it comes to the functions at the IP and IJ categories, where the MBTI has a wrong functional theory. And the pictures are top quality, just a couple of mistakes (like two) there these days (as they have been adding them).

Then there's something else too correct in Socionics, but that's it (most of the texts, I do not agree), but that's enough, the theory itself is now complete, has been a long time, but not too many has a complete enough understanding of it yet, of the theory that's actually more simple than you think, it just having been made complex and half nonsense by people who do not understand it well enough. The understanding of it is not complete even in Socionics, and the texts are pretty horrible at many places.

[jason_m]

I agree that there are no exact types. Most people do not fit perfectly into one type. There are two reasons for this: 1) Your environment shapes your behaviour to some extent, and environments are not so neatly packaged as to produce one single type, and 2) The brain is very complex, so complex that it isn't possible to capture the way it works in a simple personality system. Personality systems are only rough abstractions of behaviour. They cannot possibly account for all the variables involved. Therefore, you cannot expect them to work perfectly.

Jason