Allergic reaction to "consensus"

[stevENTj]

Basically whenever anybody suggests to me that there's a consensus on something, I reflexively laugh to myself and automatically assume that the consensus is a load of rubbish while nodding my head 'oh ok' to allow the person to think I believe them. Later I come back with a half dozen examples proving the conesnus is bullshit. I've gotten so cynical over time that I almost want to just blurt out some very offensive and sarcastic comments rather than being polite, but for the most part I manage to keep my mouth shut. This happens everywhere. It quite commonly happens on Internet forums including here, and it also happens in real life. In exceptionally rare cases, I might actually agree with the consensus on something.

I think a lot of it has to do with a vs axis divide.

Alphas are the ones coming up with all sorts of neat stuff.
Betas are the ones pushing some of that into the mainstream.
Gammas are sort of like a gatekeeper, and the first to value .

(and Deltas are just trying to hold the house together)

Also I think it comes from a complete, total, utter rejection of . A lot of people might buy into a consensus simply because they "trust" the person an opinion or idea is coming from based on their position or authority and whatnot. An ILI rejects all that. Once upon a time at the office, entire departments up to and including VPs had bought into something as being true on a particular issue, and I was asked to carry out some actions based from that consensus. But I thought the consensus was BS, risked my own job, went my own way, and actually solved the problem while proving the consensus wasn't true. Not down-talking anybody else - sometimes you really do need a "fresh" perspective on something.

Groupthink is quite common on Internet forums. If it sound good and feels good to believe that something is true and everybody else is saying it, it therefore it must be true. This is the weakest form of reasoning of all, but surprisingly common. Sometimes there might actually be some well thought-out arguments with plenty of merit, but that commonly leads back to the Ti vs Te divide. A disconnection between the theoretical world and reality.

Just as there is an under-representation of Gammas on this forum, there also seems to be one out in the real-world and on other Internet forums too. I think it's because the ILI spends so much time researching trying to determine if something is really true or not that they never get around to posting anything! For the most part I might read a forum for a particular interest, see what people are saying, 90% of the time I'll come to the conclusion that the consensus or "view of the forum" is rubbish, and then not bother to even argue back. Seriously, why bother? Do I have WEEKS of time to argue back and forth with people? Do I care that much? For the most part no. The knowledge is kept to myself and those that have bought into the consensus "just because" miss out on a diversified viewpoint that they might actually benefit from. For many people just going with the flow, it might never occur to them that the consensus could be false, nor that an opposing view could actually be legitimate. Only in exceptionally rare cases where I truly care and am actually passionate enough about the subject will I actually bother "going to war" to battle some bullshit consensus, either online or in real-life.

I have no idea how 16T is these days, but back in the day I would make a post with an opinion or view or example that went against the grain and the next thing I knew I'd have a dozen posts about what an idiot I surely must be because "this has all been decided already and you're wrong". Ok that's nice. Do I care enough to bother arguing back for 15 pages? With socionics the answer is no. Sorry. I like this theory but not enough to argue back and forth for hours on end.

On another topic on another forum it's been the opposite case. There the overwhelming forum consensus was that something or someone (a public figure out there) was 100% BS. That I especially love and automatically assume that that something/someone must have a whole lot of good points or information! A lot of this is anger from aggravating the forum's , and the ensuing irrational/emotional response. 90% of what people would claim was provably false, and the remaining 10% was simply difference of opinion mixed in with arrogance and bigotry and being unable to handle any other opinion than their own. Since this was a topic I cared about much more, I actually bothered to argue, and spend quite a bit of time doing it. Soon after others came out of the woodwork and would argue as well. Others would send me private messages applauding me for "standing up" against all the BS and that they agreed, but just didn't want to get in the middle of it or waste their time. Today I think the consensus might be far more neutral as there's now a critical mass of those willing to defend what everybody previously thought was BS whereas before there wasn't. This particular public figure I've typed as an SLI with PoLR , so I especially can relate. Since Internet forums tend to have a rather high quotient and this particular figure wasn't the least bit shy about voicing opinions that would aggravate the Fe, that would explain the highly negative views a lot of people had of this particular public figure.

End rant.

This also ties into: Are INTPs whistle blowers?

[Jarno]

I see we share the same frustrations :-)

I remember the time at this forum when I came here everyone told me I had to switch J/P to know my mbti type. I said it doesn't work like that, and people responded 'go do your homework'.

That's odd, I was thinking the same about them...


Often (not always) I figure out things myself before stating an opinion. Then at least I have my private consensus, so to say.

[smilodon]

My view of consensus is that it is really the leader of a group deciding what the group will think and the sheep in the group being, uh, ok, I don't really care.

[marooned]

I see "consensus" as valuable in terms of motion. When some sort of group decision needs to be made, it can't be if everyone disagrees with one another. With no "consensus" there's no moving forward. So it ends up being part of coordination. I kinda suspect that often times when there is some grand collective decision that needs to made involving a lot of people in a lot of places with a lot of different specialties and a lot of costs and resources, etc. that a consensus ends up being pointless. It may be needed to get everything moving "as one" in a single direction… to make a decision that "everyone is a part of" and actually act on it. But the action that ends up happening might be entirely pointless, not really lead to anything, and simply be overturned or forgotten about in later years. So the consensus enabled pointless movement, which arguably isn't any better than no movement. But I do see the concept of "consensus" as quite relevant to how we can actually get something done or head in a certain direction when there are a lot of people involved and a lot of things involved. And the problem is, how else do you do it? Everyone could vote. That might be even worse. One person, or small group of persons could simply dictate (this could potentially work better or it could go terribly wrong). The point is that you have a body with millions of limbs that needs to somehow move itself a certain way and pave out a certain scheme of actions, and each of its limbs has its own individual brain and there is no brain connecting all of the limbs together. Things like the "consensus" create an artificial "brain" to direct all of the limbs into a particular course of action. However, since all of the limbs have their own brains, they're not willing to do anything they don't agree with (so their opinions all end up mattering even if some of them have really stupid opinions). It's because they're all connected that you have to involve all of them somehow in the process. Though all of their fingers don't have their own brains and will simply be mindless automatons doing whatever the limb tells them to do. This is really why political tactics and things such as power-shifting and pursuasion and consideration of how everyone feels about it, etc. end up being necessary... it's a big negotiation to get everyone to agree to do the same thing (because if they can't agree, they can't do anything). We try to be individuals and termites at the same time and it's very tricky.

[Cyrano]

I vote yes...maybe.

[717495]

I know some ILIs here that think otherwise about the topic, however I share the same frustration about the consensus wholeheartedly, however my views of trying to "figure socionics out" along with other things aren't really firmly established as such. I'm just here viewing the many options people fabricate for themselves, and am not really concerned with figuring out anything, like a puzzle. The idea of whistle-blowing is fair, for I'd like to say that I play the defense when it comes to argumentation about the consensus and alike trains of thought, which are overly prescribed in a way that is disturbing, but I'm not here to impose the rules, only prevent myself from the dangerous errors the consensus offers that seem quite obviously rubbish. So you can say my method of learning is like gathering water from a leaky faucet.

[Brilliand]

I've found consensus annoying myself - I thought it was something that Feeling types would find convenient, to tell them which Logical types to trust. I can also see what Loki is saying - that even though consensus doesn't make truth, sometimes we all need to agree so that we can do something.

Assuming that this view is the correct view (and thus the one that any intelligent human will end up at eventually), those who use consensus as the primary support for their views are probably doing one of the following:

• Thinking that the group is engaged in some sort of action that you are obstructing
• Mindlessly mimicking others who had used consensus properly
• Trying to defend their right to think a certain way without putting forth effort that may need to be put forth again and again every time they meet someone who disagrees with them

As an extension of the third bullet: They may be trying to protect one group of idiots from the opinions of another group of idiots without having to deal with every... idiot... one... at... a... time... This really shouldn't be called consensus, but people don't always choose the best word for what they're trying to say.

[Warlord]

just because they are all flying in the same direction, doesn't necessarily mean they are flying in the right direction.

Yes, also a guy in a MUD that I play, has the saying: Those who know it the wrongest, know it the loudest.

[717495]

just because they are all flying in the same direction, doesn't necessarily mean they are flying in the right direction.

Sometimes I fly, but then I fall, because I was alive.

[717495]

Those who know it the wrongest, know it the loudest.

Those who know of wrong, are right to not specify, when there is no longer, the right to ignore.

[AQ]

Basically whenever anybody suggests to me that there's a consensus on something, I reflexively laugh to myself and automatically assume that the consensus is a load of rubbish while nodding my head 'oh ok' to allow the person to think I believe them. Later I come back with a half dozen examples proving the conesnus is bullshit. I've gotten so cynical over time that I almost want to just blurt out some very offensive and sarcastic comments rather than being polite, but for the most part I manage to keep my mouth shut. This happens everywhere. It quite commonly happens on Internet forums including here, and it also happens in real life. In exceptionally rare cases, I might actually agree with the consensus on something.

I think a lot of it has to do with a vs axis divide.

Alphas are the ones coming up with all sorts of neat stuff.
Betas are the ones pushing some of that into the mainstream.
Gammas are sort of like a gatekeeper, and the first to value .

(and Deltas are just trying to hold the house together)

Also I think it comes from a complete, total, utter rejection of . A lot of people might buy into a consensus simply because they "trust" the person an opinion or idea is coming from based on their position or authority and whatnot. An ILI rejects all that. Once upon a time at the office, entire departments up to and including VPs had bought into something as being true on a particular issue, and I was asked to carry out some actions based from that consensus. But I thought the consensus was BS, risked my own job, went my own way, and actually solved the problem while proving the consensus wasn't true. Not down-talking anybody else - sometimes you really do need a "fresh" perspective on something.

Groupthink is quite common on Internet forums. If it sound good and feels good to believe that something is true and everybody else is saying it, it therefore it must be true. This is the weakest form of reasoning of all, but surprisingly common. Sometimes there might actually be some well thought-out arguments with plenty of merit, but that commonly leads back to the Ti vs Te divide. A disconnection between the theoretical world and reality.

Just as there is an under-representation of Gammas on this forum, there also seems to be one out in the real-world and on other Internet forums too. I think it's because the ILI spends so much time researching trying to determine if something is really true or not that they never get around to posting anything! For the most part I might read a forum for a particular interest, see what people are saying, 90% of the time I'll come to the conclusion that the consensus or "view of the forum" is rubbish, and then not bother to even argue back. Seriously, why bother? Do I have WEEKS of time to argue back and forth with people? Do I care that much? For the most part no. The knowledge is kept to myself and those that have bought into the consensus "just because" miss out on a diversified viewpoint that they might actually benefit from. For many people just going with the flow, it might never occur to them that the consensus could be false, nor that an opposing view could actually be legitimate. Only in exceptionally rare cases where I truly care and am actually passionate enough about the subject will I actually bother "going to war" to battle some bullshit consensus, either online or in real-life.

I have no idea how 16T is these days, but back in the day I would make a post with an opinion or view or example that went against the grain and the next thing I knew I'd have a dozen posts about what an idiot I surely must be because "this has all been decided already and you're wrong". Ok that's nice. Do I care enough to bother arguing back for 15 pages? With socionics the answer is no. Sorry. I like this theory but not enough to argue back and forth for hours on end.

On another topic on another forum it's been the opposite case. There the overwhelming forum consensus was that something or someone (a public figure out there) was 100% BS. That I especially love and automatically assume that that something/someone must have a whole lot of good points or information! A lot of this is anger from aggravating the forum's , and the ensuing irrational/emotional response. 90% of what people would claim was provably false, and the remaining 10% was simply difference of opinion mixed in with arrogance and bigotry and being unable to handle any other opinion than their own. Since this was a topic I cared about much more, I actually bothered to argue, and spend quite a bit of time doing it. Soon after others came out of the woodwork and would argue as well. Others would send me private messages applauding me for "standing up" against all the BS and that they agreed, but just didn't want to get in the middle of it or waste their time. Today I think the consensus might be far more neutral as there's now a critical mass of those willing to defend what everybody previously thought was BS whereas before there wasn't. This particular public figure I've typed as an SLI with PoLR , so I especially can relate. Since Internet forums tend to have a rather high quotient and this particular figure wasn't the least bit shy about voicing opinions that would aggravate the Fe, that would explain the highly negative views a lot of people had of this particular public figure.

End rant.

This also ties into: Are INTPs whistle blowers?

I want to agree with you completely on what you have written. Just that, would agreeing with you go towards the making of a consensus ?

[stevENTj]

A consensus of ILIs agree that consenses tend to be bullshit.

I do agree though, that there can be a bit of a grey area also.

One thing I've noticed is that whatever is being discussed whether there's a consensus or not, I must always take the side of the less well supported side of the argument, whether I ultimately agree or not. Example would be "Issue A" and "Issue B". Lets say that Issue A has a very well supported argument behind it and that I agree with it, but that B is not being argued well at all. Even if I agree more with "A", I'll reflexively prop up Issue B with a much more solid argument. Sometimes I'll make a sarcastic comment if I'm already on the stronger side stating to an adversary that "I could put together a more solid argument in favor of your side of the debate than you could!". I don't really understand why I do this, but I just do it.

As far as consensus needed to get movement on an issue, well if the consensus is wrong then what's the point of doing something just for the sake of doing something? If you're not going in the right direction you're just going to waste a whole ton of time and money, and for what? I find that incredibly wasteful and inefficient. Do it once, do it right.

[FDG]

I'm not sure, why must consensus necessarily be wrong? I mean I suppose that truth is generally indipendent from either consensus or lack thereof, thus if one wants to be completely objective either variable should be ignored rather than "gone against", so to speak. Is there any particular reason why consensus is more likely to be wrong?

[AQ]

A consensus of ILIs agree that consenses tend to be bullshit.

I do agree though, that there can be a bit of a grey area also.

One thing I've noticed is that whatever is being discussed whether there's a consensus or not, I must always take the side of the less well supported side of the argument, whether I ultimately agree or not. Example would be "Issue A" and "Issue B". Lets say that Issue A has a very well supported argument behind it and that I agree with it, but that B is not being argued well at all. Even if I agree more with "A", I'll reflexively prop up Issue B with a much more solid argument. Sometimes I'll make a sarcastic comment if I'm already on the stronger side stating to an adversary that "I could put together a more solid argument in favor of your side of the debate than you could!". I don't really understand why I do this, but I just do it.

As far as consensus needed to get movement on an issue, well if the consensus is wrong then what's the point of doing something just for the sake of doing something? If you're not going in the right direction you're just going to waste a whole ton of time and money, and for what? I find that incredibly wasteful and inefficient. Do it once, do it right.

Yes, the under-represented and the underdogs get my attention too. I don't have to agree with their pov, and unless harmful to the world in a macro way, I want their views also to be represented ...

Just digressing: I find that the catatonic stupor that is generally attributed to INTps comes because of the same ability to see many sides to a situation ... better be accused of inaction than of wrong action ... If we actually get around to acting on our hunches, again my observation, INTps can really work wonders.

[Brilliand]

Yes, the under-represented and the underdogs get my attention too. I don't have to agree with their pov, and unless harmful to the world in a macro way, I want their views also to be represented ...

Just digressing: I find that the catatonic stupor that is generally attributed to INTps comes because of the same ability to see many sides to a situation ... better be accused of inaction than of wrong action ... If we actually get around to acting on our hunches, again my observation, INTps can really work wonders.

That applies to me too... Either one of us is mistyped or this spans several types, maybe even all. Opinions?

[Logos]

That applies to me too... Either one of us is mistyped or this spans several types, maybe even all. Opinions?

The ability to see (and fundamentally act on) multiple-perspectives lies within the realm of Ne. Such an application would not apply only to Ne-egos. Then factor in strong Te and Ti to provide the argumentative support.

[Grek0]

I'm not sure, why must consensus necessarily be wrong? I mean I suppose that truth is generally indipendent from either consensus or lack thereof, thus if one wants to be completely objective either variable should be ignored rather than "gone against", so to speak. Is there any particular reason why consensus is more likely to be wrong?

For sure, the consensus can be right, and truth is independent of whether a consensus exists or not (except for cases where the consensus creates the "truth" in some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy - those who trade the fin. markets know this well).
However, if we agree that

1) the best human faculty to arrive as close to the "truth" as possible is reason (and most INTps would probably agree on that), and

2) the majority of people only scantily resort to reason for approaching or checking the truth, relying instead more heavily on emotions, whims, the views of those around them, the views of those who they perceive have "authority" etc

then you end up with a consensus (the view of the majority) that is most likely wrong. And it is proven wrong, sooner or later. This is what makes INTps be seemingly 'automatic' in their rejection of consensus: they understand how consensus emerges, most of the time

[stevENTj]

For sure, the consensus can be right, and truth is independent of whether a consensus exists or not (except for cases where the consensus creates the "truth" in some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy - those who trade the fin. markets know this well).
However, if we agree that

1) the best human faculty to arrive as close to the "truth" as possible is reason (and most INTps would probably agree on that), and

2) the majority of people only scantily resort to reason for approaching or checking the truth, relying instead more heavily on emotions, whims, the views of those around them, the views of those who they perceive have "authority" etc

then you end up with a consensus (the view of the majority) that is most likely wrong. And it is proven wrong, sooner or later. This is what makes INTps be seemingly 'automatic' in their rejection of consensus: they understand how consensus emerges, most of the time

Wow, that's it! Great post!

[AQ]

That applies to me too... Either one of us is mistyped or this spans several types, maybe even all. Opinions?

I am sure both our typings are right. Just that, I always felt, Ni has not been presented properly in Socionics. Probably because non-Ni valuers did the describing.

If you also see Banana Pancakes thread on http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-exactly.html, u can notice that Sigma's description talks about multi-ways to do things. I agree with Sigma. I too can see a lot of ways of doing the same thing and Te helps me decide the most efficient method.

The ability to see (and fundamentally act on) multiple-perspectives lies within the realm of Ne. Such an application would not apply only to Ne-egos. Then factor in strong Te and Ti to provide the argumentative support.

Logos, my understanding is Ne is scattered, as somewhere (esp the Ne-leading types) are trying to be/(show they are) unique. So, they pick up on a lot that is happening in their environment and focus on those.

So, this scattering seems like it is multi-perspective, but it is just perspectives on multiple objects, things. Whereas, Ni seems to be like same object/situation but different perspectives at different times.

So, I don't think INTps are tapping into their Id functions. I think they are doing something innately different.

Just an example: I have an ENTp cousin and an ENFp friend. My ENTp cousin is a photographer and ENFp friend also likes photography a lot. Both are always interested in pointing to interesting objects in different phases of action. My INTp ex-colleague, also a photographer, looks to create meaning in the pics he takes. So, takes pics accordingly.

And, I don't mean to hijack StevENTj's thread, but the Ne, Ni thing definitely needs to be worked on more. Somehow, I find, the J functions are described with lesser ambiguity in Socionics. (I notice a lot of threads still working out the differences between Se and Si.)