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]
Printable View
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]
You think Richard Dawkins is an ESTj and not an ENTp? He argues like an ENTp and seems to have an Fi PoLR.
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. :P
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
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:Quote:
I don't think he has Fi PoLR at all. What do you mean?
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.Quote:
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.
Okay, and I don't. I see him as a Ne, Fi role, with an Alpha vibe.Quote:
I see him as Te, Fe role, but also with a sort of Delta vibe rather than Gamma.
+2 logos.
-2 diamond.
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 :Ti: 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 :Te: -based world view. Is there a simple explanation for that, or are they mistyped?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
If you want to find clear examples of :Ti: 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond8
-3000 everybody but me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Oh yes, that was so easy.
The critic has a point. Fe is an important part of communicating with "the public".
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
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.
Did I say it was?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
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 :Te: than your candied :Te:-PoLRed ass can handle.Quote:
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.
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 :Te: and the reality thereof and not the :Ti: construct that clinging to a "sexed-up atheism" view which that would most likely entail?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
And neither Einstein nor Spinoza were objectivists. If Einstein was an objectivist, he would have obviously not been so reluctant to abandon his :Ti: system of the universe for one that presupposed a dice-gambling God ("universe"), despite the :Te: evidence otherwise which highly suggested the validity of quantum mechanics. He swam in possibilities, potential, and theory. Then there is the :Fe: hidden agenda that showed how much he loved the spotlight, and his clear need of :Si: for his all-too-wandering :Ne:. Spinoza's arguments also have no real basis in empirical fact, but relied upon :Ti: 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.
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.Quote:
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 :Te: -based world view. Is there a simple explanation for that, or are they mistyped?
Who were most likely leading :Ti: and not the creative :Ti: 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 :Te:-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).Quote:
If you want to find clear examples of :Ti: systems, go to Leibniz or Kant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
And Spinoza was considered an offshoot of the Cartesian school of :Ti:. 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 :Ti: as means to derive their understanding of the universe.Quote:
Descartes might perhaps also be included in that group.
There is no :Te: or :Ti: reason which suggests that Pluralists = :Ti: & Monism = :Ni:. Again, conclusions do no matter, but merely the method of information elements used to obtain that conclusion, which matter.Quote:
And at least Leibniz and Descartes are clear examples of pluralists.
Prove it. Why do you think that is the case? If you claim to have creative-:Te:, 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?Quote:
Plato was a monist, and those following in his footsteps are also monists -- and objectivists.
And what do you know, that's Plato too!Quote:
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).
Why is it always a question of :Ne: with you? If Phaedrus was a one note song of :Te: vs. :Ti:, you would be the one note song of "That's not just :Ne:."Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
And I agree with Jonathan's point. I think it was Augusta who first attributed that to :Ne: , but I think it was more about :Ne: + :Ti: , and I think later socionists deviated from that definition.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
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.
Could you elaborate a bit on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
That is precisely my view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Which contradicts this:
If you're :Te: , 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 :Te: perspective. It seemed to fit the available evidence, and you even had a :Ti: consistent model to fit it and seemingly confirm it. However, for a :Te: 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Likewise, a :Te: perspective of quantum theory is that it accurately predicts experimental observations and allows you to predict spectrographical analyses of elements, design nuclear devices, etc. :Te: 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 :Te: 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 :Ti: .
Come on. That sentence is a textbook definition of :Ti: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
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.
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
That's precisely it. As I said, my mentioning a view of Dawkins's type was unnecessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilly
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Which exact passages in which exact textbooks? I am genuinely interested in having a look at those.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
I did not mean it so literally, so I will concede that I shouldn't have used that expression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
But before I try to dig up references, I suppose this means that you disagree that that is one definition of :Ti: ?
Yes. If it really is a definition of :Ti: it would have potentially huge consequences for my understanding of Socionics in general and the types of various philosophers in particular.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
That pretty well captures how I see the differences from my leading Ni perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
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.
Basically that Tyson was stumbling over his words and sounded downright nervous, despite the fact that he had legitimate criticism to give.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Why do you think that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
And why do you apply that with Einstein?Quote:
Einstein's world view was clearly externalistic, but he could have such a view and still be an ENTp.
You said it yourself, if you want a :Ti: system, just read Immanuel Kant, because Einstein operates on a very Kantian view of the universe.Quote:
That is what I would like an explanation of, if we assume that Einstein really was an ENTp.
Kant again: phenomenon and noumenon. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
I want to elaborate more on this.
What I meant is that the very concept that something "must" have an structure, regardless of observations, already feels like a :Ti: concept to me. Anything that "must" exist despite any information is already :Ti: , and even as far as :Ni: is concerned, it seems to me more :Ni: + :Ti: than :Ni: + :Te: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
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 :Te: can lead to certainty of being right, but always regarding things derived from information and observations, even second-hand ones.
gimme a break?Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
-3 more for caringQuote:
Originally Posted by diamond8
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Exactly my point too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
In what sense do you think that Einstein's view of the universe is Kantian?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Leading :Ne: function. Thank you, come again.Quote:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
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.Quote:
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.
The existence of a priori universal truths which are partially dependent upon our ability to perceive them through our perceptions via phenomenon.Quote:
In what sense do you think that Einstein's view of the universe is Kantian?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Here you show that you neither understand Kant, Einstein, Expat, nor yourself.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
lol good one!Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
:? Which point? I meant that I would only reject the Copenhagen interpretation in the face of evidence. As long as there is no such evidence, I would accept it as a possibility. I think Einstein was wrong to reject it simply because of that "God and dice" argument. I much prefer Bohr's stance in the matter. You seem to have gotten my views backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Its fairly obvious that things exist outside our knowledge - but accepting this doesn't make you an Objectivist - it is always going to be a subjective opinion, because you can never know if you know everything or not, precisely because you don't know what you don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Your claim that things are Objective rests on the assumption that something is Objective if it can't be proved false - firstly, this is your subjective opinion, and secondly, just because something can't be proved false doesn't make it incontrovertible fact. You might say objective laws exist outside human experience, but again, that is your opinion, and what good is it to anybody? At least with a relativist approach, things can be shown to be at least conditionally true, and working in practice.
It seems that Subjectivists can get airplanes flying in the air, while Objectivists go round saying 'there are objective laws independent of human experience'.
I'm not sure there is any necessity involved, and that's why it is worth discussing. But it is rather clear that internalism is implicit in the Subjectivist's view of the world according to Reinin, as the Subjectivist isQuote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Everything is interpreted from the subject's perspective.Quote:
Not inclined to deduce 'objective truths' from their own and others' experiences – everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person. Accordingly, another person's actions are judged as correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They attempt to compare others' views to their own, and to explain their own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the concepts being spoken of.
We have discussed this more than once, and internalism is clearly implicit in how most INTjs on this forum understand the concept knowledge. An externalist position is for example the causal theory of knowledge, according to which the statement "A knows that p" is equivalent to:
1. A's believes that p.
2. p is true.
3. A's belief that p is justified.
4. A's belief that p is caused by the fact that p is true.
The internalist would say that those four conditions are not enough to define knowledge (= justified true belief). He would add a fifth condition:
5. A believes that A's belief that p is caused by the fact that p is true.
The internalist always ends up with the subject. The externalist always ends up with the object.
Externalism is implicit in this passage describing an essential feature of being an Objectivist in the Reinin dichotomies:
Quote:
3.Inclined to believe there are 'objective truths' – the truth is not always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective (only one 'correct' or 'best' way of doing something). Whether something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.
That answer is too simple. Why are ENTps Subjectivists (Ti) in the Reinin dichotomies then? Are the described general differences between Subjectivists and Objectivists not true? In that case we should try to understand why they are wrong and misleading. Maybe Ganin is right about them (article on his site).Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Well, this is certainly internally logical, and if you have followed the debates in the Alpha thread about these things, you should at least have a clue of what I am getting at. The INTj's internalist view of knowledge is so obvious to everyone that it shouldn't need to be explained. See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
And which would be the a priori truths in Einstein's view of the universe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
I certainly do. Everything I say here is true. What exactly is it that you don't understand in this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Yes. Typical ENTj attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Yes, he was. And he didn't. The "God and dice" argument is not an argument, it is an expression of an attitude. The arguments for rejecting the Copenhagen interpretation are philosophical, and I have already indictated what those arguments are about. But you have to study this more deeply if you want to understand clearly why it is inconsistent to accept the Copenhagen interpretation if you are an externalist and a realist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Not at all. I understand perfectly well what your view is, and I understand perfectly well why it is natural for you to express it in exactly the way you have done. You adopt a consistent :Te: stance here. And that is not enough to establish the truth of what I am saying. You also have to compare the logical consequences of accepting different philosophical premises, some of which you are not aware that you adhere to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
A priori truths are non-empirical - a posteriori truths aren't - Einstein based his assumptions about the whole universe on what he had observed locally - he was able to make such a priori judgments about the whole universe because he made sure there weren't any contradictions in his work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
You seem to think things are Objective simply because they haven't been disproved - for something to be Objective, it has to be unconditionally true - but we can never prove it, so therefore nothing can be considered objective.
It seems that: A subjectivist observes the world around him\her, and makes assumptions that don't contradict what they know on the rest of the Universe.
An objectivist makes assumptions about the Universe, and then applies the laws they have created to their own local environment :P .
And the way you phrase it here is an expression of a Subjectivist's world view (the key phrase in bold). So, why do you protest when we both agree on how to spot an Objectivist and how to spot a Subjectivist? In a socionic perspective it is not relevant who has the correct world view, but it is surely relevant that we agree on the differences between what constitutes a Subjectivist and what constitutes an Objectivist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
I do certainly not claim that. Objective are those "things" that exist. Truths can "exist", but whether they exist or not has nothing to do with provability. You seem to consistently misunderstand my position here. I am not the one talking about provability -- you are. I can't prove that there are no unicorns in the Andromeda Galaxy, and you probably can't either. But what does this have to do with objectivity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
Of course not. What on earth has made you believe that I would have that ridiculous view?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
Yes, it is an opinion. And that opinion is either true or false. What good is it to anybody? I don't know. But that question is irrelevant in this context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
The attitude you are expressing here is a typical example of a Subjectivist's world view. You can also compare it with Pragmatism, which is another branch of the Subjectivist tree. That is what I think we should focus on here -- how your type is indicated in the style and content of your writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
Objective may refer to things that exist in your opinion - but doesn't that assume that things exist? i.e. things are actually Objective until you have proven otherwise - but such criteria for proving are always subjective, because they always rely on your assumptions and observations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
An a priori truth is not the same thing as an a priori judgment. There are no a priori truths in Einstein's theory. The truth of his views is not established a priori, it is, and has been, established by empirical tests. And of course he made sure there were no logical contradictions in his work. Everyone does that. If a theory contains a contradiction it is a false theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
You don't know what you are talking about here. Something does not have to be unconditionally true to be objective. Objective truths are simply true, and they are valid for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
Okay, but I still struggle to see how any of this externalist/internalist junk that you are throwing out is relevant to anything apart from adding further complexities to your own convoluted logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Because externalistic =! objectivst. Externalist corresponds more with extroverted functions. So it is externalist in the sense of corresponding with the external world. I am more inclined to believe that both INTps and INTjs are Internalists.Quote:
That answer is too simple. Why are ENTps Subjectivists (Ti) in the Reinin dichotomies then? Are the described general differences between Subjectivists and Objectivists not true? In that case we should try to understand why they are wrong and misleading. Maybe Ganin is right about them (article on his site).Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
I do not like to presume, so you are going to have be quite explicit with me.Quote:
Well, this is certainly internally logical, and if you have followed the debates in the Alpha thread about these things, you should at least have a clue of what I am getting at. The INTj's internalist view of knowledge is so obvious to everyone that it shouldn't need to be explained. See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
See Subterranean's response.Quote:
And which would be the a priori truths in Einstein's view of the universe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
[/quote]Why you still believe you understand Kant's philosophy; why you think you understand Einstein's scientific approach and beliefs; why you continue to label yourself an objectivist and a realist; and why you think that Expat identifies, let alone agrees, with you. Why do you continue to fool yourself? That is what I do not understand.Quote:
I certainly do. Everything I say here is true. What exactly is it that you don't understand in this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
If his views were only proven after he thought them, then how weren't his views established a priori?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
The Earth orbits around the Sun is an objective fact, and isn't conditionally true? i.e. if the Sun explodes and destroys the Earth, the Earth will still orbit round the Sun, because 'it is true'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
The Earth orbiting around the Sun is conditionally true - but it is also close to being an objective fact (for all intents and purposes). It isn't simply 'true' - i.e. in the sense it is unconditionally true - which is what being objective should mean.
As far as Reinin dichotomies are concerned, I never cease to wonder at how you insist in making complicated what is simple. The Merry/Serious dichotomy is NOT defined by those remarks on Objectivist/Subjectivist. The Merry/Serious dichotomy is nothing more nor less than Fe-Ti/Te-Fi as quadra values. That's it. It may very well be that that particular paragraph , whoever wrote it (since it's not in the original Reinin-Augusta paper) is badly phrased or simply confusing to those like yourself who tend to look at socionics (and unnecessarily making it complicated) from the point of view of philosophical concepts, which just add to your confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
That particular definition may be wrong, confused, whatever. It doesn't matter. Perhaps Ganin is right and lots of the dichotomies are ill-defined or baseless. But as far as the Merry/Serious dichotomy is concerned, none of that matters, because it's simply another name for the Fe-Ti/Te-Fi divide. It doesn't even have to be called a Reinin dichotomy. Even if you drop Reinin dichotomies totally, that would have no effect whatsoever on that particular issue.
So, yes, let's assume that that particular paragraph you quoted is wrong. It prevents you from mixing socionics with philosophical concepts - a very good thing. But it does not affect the socionics point in any way.
Whenever you give examples of an "objective truth", you seem to refer to plain logic, which is true disconnected from specific facts or observable evidence. As in if A contradicts B then only either A or B can be true, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
In socionics terms, that is :Ti: and not :Te: .
Well, at least I am an externalist, and I am an INTp, so we have at least one exception in case you are right about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
You understand that you have an internalist conception of knowledge yourself, don't you? To always insist on provability and that we must know when talk about truth is to express an internalist perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
I understand it because I have studied it. I don't fool myself. And if you don't understand I don't know how to help you. Maybe it will be possible if you start to ask very specific questions, but sweaping statements about my lack of understanding and your own lack of understanding is not very constructive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
You are misusing the expression "a priori", at least in relation to Kant. The words "a priori/a posteriori" have been used long before Kant, but Kant gave them a special meaning, making them roughly equivalent to the modern distinction between analytic truths and synthetic truths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
Kant thought that some synthetical truths are known to be true a priori. There is no such idea in Einstein's theory, and of course he didn't know that his theory was true until he had empirical evidence for it. The truth of Einstein's views were not established a priori, but of course he came up with them before they were tested.
It is, it has always been, and it will always be, an objective fact that the Earth is now orbiting around the Sun. That is a timeless truth, and every truth is timeless, because truth is a property of propositions, which are abstract entities (and propositions are also timeless).Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
You can't change a truth, just as you can't change the past or the future. What has happened is fixed, and what will happen is also fixed in the sense that the truth value of every possible proposition we can state about what will happen in the future is fixed. That is not the same thing as saying that we can't do what we want, or that we don't have an influence on what the future will be like. We are not powerless, but we will do whatever it is true that we will do.
But it is a contingent fact that the Earth orbits around the Sun, because it is possible to imagine that it isn't that way. It is not a necessary truth that the Earth orbits around the Sun.
The Merry/Serious dichotomy captures the difference between having Fe as a quadra value and having Fi as a quadra value. The Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy is the difference between having Ti as a quadra value and having Te as a quadra value. What is said about the difference between Merry and Serious is not necessarily true about the difference between Subjectivist and Objectivist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
...Blah?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
That's because everyone agrees (or should agree) on the truth of them. But I have also given examples of other objective truths that are not plain logic, for example the objective truth that there are truths that will never be known to anyone of us ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
No. Or even if we could decide to call it :Ti: , we should definitely not emphasize the importance of talking about :Ti: in that way, because people get confused about it. It is certainly not the most essential feature of :Ti: , and when you and others say things like that (conceptual logic and logical reasoning in general = :Ti: ) people inevitably get the wrong ideas about the types.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
It's not two different dichotomies, it's just one, as the article posted in this forum makes clear. Besides being logically obvious, since if you have Fe as quadra value you necessarily have Ti as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
There is no such a thing as a separate Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy. There is only the Fe-Ti/Fi-Te divide, which you can call Merry/Serious or Subjectivist/Objectivist, as you prefer, but it's all about one single divide, pretty much like Reasonable/Resolute, which is just the Ne-Si/Se-Ni divide.
That's the single most illuminating post you ever wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
We don't disagree on anything substantial here, but the things said in the Reinin quotes about Subjectivists being relativists etc. are related to :Ti: and :Te:, not to :Fe: and :Fi:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Since :Ti: is intrinsically related to :Fe: and :Te: to :Fi: , what you just said makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Of course it makes sense. If you don't understand it ... well, what can I do about it? You insist on not making a logical distinction that it is perfectly possible to make -- a distinction that makes things clearer. If you refuse to, or are not able to, comprehend those concepts, you could try to do some logical exercises in order to enhance your thinking capacity. (This is not meant as an insult, even though it might seem so. I am actually serious about this.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Here's something for your superior thinking capacity to consider then.
The only way you even discuss :Ti: and :Te: is by resorting to that dichotomy. You don't seem to be able to even discuss it otherwise. Yet that is not central to socionics definitions of those functions.
Are you even able to discuss those functions without referring to that one paragraph in the description of Reinin dichotomies? Do you have an independent understanding of what they are?
Let me put it another way. Let us say that Ganin is right and Reinin dichotomies are nonsense. So, your Objectivist/Subjetivist paragraph are invalid, let us assume, as you suggested might be the case.
How would you define :Te: and :Ti: then?
Definitions of words are not that important. The referents to the words are much more important. That means that it is important to understand the true nature of :Ti: and :Te: -- not as they are defined, but as they actually are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Yes, and that's what I am trying to discuss. But you can't understand the true nature of :Ti: as a real existing phenomenon if you don't understand that it implies an internalist perspective, that it implies a subjectivist perspective in contrast to an objectivist perspective both in Reinin's sense and in a general philosophical sense (which Jung has talked about, by the way).Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
It is not. But it is possible that I don't know how to explain this to you in a way that you will understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Of course it is not invalid. It might not work for every type in the Subjectivist/Objectivist divide, but it certainly works for INTps and INTjs -- the two types people are sick of hearing about since I bring them up over and over again. If people understood the differences correctly, we could leave it. But since they don't, I keep bringing this issue into focus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
They should not be defined exactly. We should learn how to tell them apart from observing people's behaviours, for example in writing styles and general attitudes. We should understand the nature of :Ti: and :Te: , but it is a clear mistake to think that it is necessary to define the words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
They are not intrinsically linked to those functions in anything but a trivial way in relation to what I am trying to say. We are talking about different things here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Your logical error here has the form: If A then B. B, therefore A.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
I have said that U(Ti) => I(p) & S(pr) & S(pp).
From that you deduce (incorrectly) that S(pr) & S(pp) => U(Ti).
This is one of the most common of logical mistakes, and you are certainly not alone in making it. But since you are in fact guilty of making that logical fallacy, it is perhaps not unlikely that you could actually benefit from trying out some logical exercises after all.
Ok, then from where else did you get your understanding of what Ti is as distinct from Te?
By the way, by any socionics definition, your logical argument is based on sheer :Ti: . That is, yes, the essence of :Ti: in socionics.
From various sources, including different socionic descriptions of the functions, Rick's summary of The Semantics of the Information Elements, Jung's descriptions, discussions on this forum where especially those with INTjs have been highly illuminating, readings of Kant and other texts written by INTjs, and comparing them with texts written by typical Te types, etc, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
And that's why we have a problem, Houston. Why do we have a problem? Because people tend to draw false conclusions about other people's types based on what you say here. They see someone using logical arguments like the one I have used here, and they immediately start screaming: " :Ti:, :Ti:, :Ti:!!!" ... (pause) ... "LII, LII, LII!!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
My behaviour is typical ILI behaviour, and yet people misidentify it as typical LII behaviour based on the false assumption that only LIIs are prone to focus on logic. Actually it is more likely the other way around -- that it is the ILIs that are more interested in a pedantic focus on logical arguments and spotting logical fallacies. That is of course mentioned in the type descriptions, but since it is rather popular among people on this forum to dismiss type descriptions as unimportant, they tend to make typing mistakes.
Who's "we", pale-face?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Phaedrus, calling yourself an externalist, objectivist, or whatever-it-ist of jargon you pull out of no where involving the functionary theory of Socionics, does not somehow inherently make you one, especially if your own rhetoric and logic (or lack thereof) suggest otherwise. You call yourself an externalist and objectivist, but who has compared through the individual subject more, me and the other LIIs, ILEs, and even Expat, or you? You repeatedly reassure yourself by commending your own logic while ignoring your own logical inconsistencies that has been pointed out by both sides of the Merry (:Ti:) and Serious (:Te:) aspects. You constantly try and group yourself with others to try and somehow reaffirm your nonexistent evidence or logic. You do not seem to be looking at the functions at all anymore. You merely compare yourself and use yourself as the subject for all that you write. How does that objectively make you an objectivist? Why do you call yourself an externalist and objectivist and then associate yourself with Expat and Einstein, when prior Expat and others logically established that Einstein was a Merry ILE? Expat (the Objectivist :wink:) has established a perceived difference between himself and Einstein, and yet you are desperately trying to cling to both. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too now?
You asked how ILEs could possibly be externalistic, and I gave you logical explanation, and it was brushed aside because you said it was too simple. Too simple? What about that lovely logical and scientific idea called Occam's Razor? The ILE is an externalist because their leading function is extroverted and deals with external possibilities, imagery, and abstract lateral thinking. Yes it is that simple. But while it peruses these external possibilities, the ILE constructs them together using creative-:Ti: as a means of keeping them logically consistent. But why does the ILE's view of reality then seem to conform with reality? Because they have a strong personal knowledge function of :Te:! This is kind of like how you insist that your flagrant use of :Ti: is also part of you somehow being an ILI. Well as far as that one thing called Socionics is concerned, it is the same here too with the ILE. Why is Einstein's primary and conscious use of :Ne: and :Ti: somehow ignored because what he theorized appeared to conform to the reality of :Te:?
Now why did Einstein object to quantum mechanics? Not because it is somehow how a subjectivist perspective, because it was proven to be objectively valid, but it was explained as being just because it is. Go ahead and try to find a Merry :Ti: who enjoys probability and gambling. Einstein, like Kant, Spinoza, and Leibniz, wanted a :Ti: logical view for the universe and not the "just because it is" that :Te: represented; "just because" explanations never bodes well for dominant-:Ti:.
Here is another interesting comment I found on Ganin's site posted by an anonymous responder (most likely an ILI) to one of Ganin's articles.
Now, I do not necessarily agree with the second to last sentence about the multiple interests of the ILI, though I can easily see why it would be as such, but it lacks the :Ne: side to establish any difference. I think that the :Ne: of the LII and ILE leads them to be more along the lines of generalists, but that is not necessarily contradictory with that sentence. But that last bit is not really relevant to the point at hand in either the quoted paragraph or how it relates to the subject matter at hand.Quote:
I would like to compare the differences in the way creativity is manifested between [Ti] and [Te]. I think that good example of ILI vs. ILE approach is Isacc Newton vs. Albert Einstein. Though Albert Einstein's initial motivation for the development of the relativity theory was his unhappiness about the logical inconsistency between the classical mechanics and the electromagnetics (a :Ti: observation), for Newton the invention of calculus was very much based on the observation (and modeling) of patterns of how objects in nature behave in time(a perspective at the time of Newton probably had a more philosophical and :Ni: bent). The development of calculus was exactly for this purpose, an approach which contrasts; incidentally with that of Leibniz, an independent discoverer of calculus and also a linguist, who may be an INTj. Interestingly, Leibniz's notation (+ Cauchy's epsilon delta) is what is in use today and offers an unending :Ti: nightmare for students who inclines toward a more intuitive :Ni: approach to understanding this subject. In any case, :Ni: understanding of the world is quite global and far-reaching; and as such is not less innovative than :Ne:, they are just expressed in a different way. Also, :Ni::Te: tends more towards multiple-interests in wide disciplines, an indication of the secondary function. The spiritual bent of :Ni: together with :Te: was characteristic of Newton who fervently pursued such things as Alchemy and scripture interpretation.
I am becoming more accepting of Phaedrus' views these days. To me, externalism/internalism has prooved to be a decent way of telling one function axis from another. I urge everyone to consider that there may be something worth learning from his writings.
Consider that these philosophical attitudes have been known to exist for centuries, and that they clearly lay anchored in the disposition of a person. The connection with socionics-types is not far-fetched at all.
- was signed, Labcoat.
I agree with what you've said; I just wouldn't describe the :Te: view as "just because it is". I would say "just because that seems to be the case according to the evidence I have and I can use it; I do not know nor particularly care how that fits a broader logical view".Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Thank you, I appreciate the correctness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Logos & Expat:
http://www.socialfiction.org/img/tetris_big.gif
Phaedrus:
http://scraly.free.fr/all/Tetris.png
I can assure you that I have an externalist perspective in the theory of knowledge, that I have an externalist perspective on the concept of truth, that I am a realist in ontology, and that I am an objectivist in the sense that I am an anti-relativist in all the areas I have so far mentioned (and in some more). So, philosophically speaking, I am clearly and without the slightest doubt, an externalist and an objectivist, and that I knew long before I knew about Socionics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
When I began to study Socionics I finally came to the inevitable conclusion that I am an ILI in this system. And I reached that conclusion before I began to study the Reinin dichotomies. The only thing the Reinin dichotomies have contributed with is to corroborate the hypothesis that I am an ILI to the point of no return. There is nothing at all in Socionics that suggests another type than ILI as more likely or even possible for me, so therefore I know that I am an ILI (and my knowledge of my type is much more certain than most people's "knowledge" of their type on this forum).
The fact is (and you can check it yourself) that to be an externalist and an objectivist in a philosophical sense happens to coincide very well with how the differences between Subjectivists and Objectivists are described in the Reinin dichotomies. And according to both the criteria in Socionics and the criteria in philosophy I am clearly an objectivist, and I am clearly an externalist. It is as simple as that.
You reveal here that you don't understand the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy, so I suggest that a little more study would be an appropriate line of action for you. And no one has so far pointed out any logical inconsistencies in my understanding of this. I am still waiting for a good argument against my theses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
I have explained why I am not talking about the functions to the extent that others do. Check that recent post of mine if you are interested in my reasons for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
I have never claimed that Einstein must be anything else than a Merry ENTp, but he is clearly an externalist and an objectivist in the philosophical sense of the those words, and as I have tried to explain, Reinin's Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy is clearly very resemblant of, and in some ways identical to, how those terms are understood in a philosophical framework. And I can tell for sure that Expat and I belong to the same Fi/Te group in Socionics. If you, or he, are unable to see that, the lack of competence is on your side, not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
It was not my intention to brush it aside. It was nothing but the usual ILI way of attacking a thesis to see whether it will crack or survive the pressure. I was hoping you could come up with further arguments, because your explanation didn't answer all the questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
If your explanation is not to simple, then we still have a problem with the Reinin dichotomy. Maybe the problem is the dichotomy itself in that case. And you still haven't addressed my arguments concering Einstein's externalism and objectivism in relation to that dichotomy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
That is indeed an interesting analysis, and I happen to agree with everything in it -- except from my reservations regarding Einstein. A couple of weeks ago I incidentally happened to discussed the differences between Newton and Leibniz (among others) with an INTj friend of mine, who is a mathematician and and expert in q-calculus, in order to find out whether he would confirm or disconfirm my hypotheses regarding general philosophical differences in attitude between INTjs and INTps. He criticized Newton's empiricist and "inexact" bent, and very much preferred Leibniz's more exact, formalistic approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Ganin himself seems to indicate that INTjs are typically more of generalists than ILIs (compare his ILI Uncovered profile), but the fact that :Ni: :Te: ILIs tend "more towards multiple-interests in wide disciplines" is definitely true, and that truth it is also clearly mentioned in the type profiles. That aspect of the differences between introverted and extraverted thinking is also mentioned in Jung's Psychological Types.
A general remark always worth making.
:Te: and :Ti: are functions, not the types that have them. Obviously a LII will "temper" his :Ti: with a healthy dose of :Te: , and vice-versa for a LIE. As has been often said, a pure :Ti: or :Te: person would belong in a lunatic asylum. That goes for all functions, obviously.
So, it is true that a ILI will be comfortable with using :Ti: , just like a LII will also use :Te:.
That's when for typing you have to look at functions in terms of preferences, not in terms of "ability" or the like -- and in order to see whether someone prefers :Ti: or :Te: , the question to be asked is this.
Which seems to be that person's most comfortable way of arguing and thinking? Where does s/he "take refuge" when having difficulty with a point or feeling under pressure? Where does s/he feel most confident and even becoming slightly arrogant? If in :Ti: , it's likely that the functional preference is :Ti: ; the same going for :Te: .
If said person more often dismisses :Te: in favor of :Ti: than the other way around, it's another hint in the same direction.
I think that this is a very central point of what socionics is all about. Disagreements?
Isn't that too sweeping a statement to make about anyone and any type? "Nothing at all" and "suggests"? Even "possible"? You seem to be claiming that your being an ILI is an "absolute truth". I'd be wary of saying that about anyone and anything in socionics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
No. But I would like to emphasize the importance of realizing that whether you prefer :Ti: or :Te: is more evident in the style of your writing (the form of your argument) than in its content. That's where you probably make a mistake in your typing of me, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
No. Some person's types are clear-cut, especially when you have had a chance to meet them IRL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Yes, the fact that I am an ILI is an absolute truth, and I have legitimate reasons for claiming that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Because socionic functions are about the form of your thoughts. They are the "channels" through which you experience the world and try to understand it. Of course they also have an influence on the content of your thoughts, but that is secondary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
I do not think that it is quite that simple in this case, but arguing this accomplishes nothing. I will say that if the externalist/internalist dichotomy coincides with the objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy, then one of the two dichotomies is quite superfluous and unnecessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
This was based upon your definitions of externalism and internalism and not the S/O dichotomy, which is not what I was addressing here, so reading comprehension would be an appropriate line of action for you. ;)Quote:
You reveal here that you don't understand the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy, so I suggest that a little more study would be an appropriate line of action for you. And no one has so far pointed out any logical inconsistencies in my understanding of this. I am still waiting for a good argument against my theses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Bold: See any any thread about S/O with you and Expat.
But what you are bringing in does not add anything other than further complexities and redundancies which are complete unnecessary to understanding Socionics.Quote:
I have explained why I am not talking about the functions to the extent that others do. Check that recent post of mine if you are interested in my reasons for that.
While you have tried to explain the overlap of the Ex/In and S/O dichotomies, what you have repeatedly failed to do is explain why Einstein "is clearly an externalist and objectivist in the philosophical sense of the words" or in the Socionic sense of the words for that matter.Quote:
I have never claimed that Einstein must be anything else than a Merry ENTp, but he is clearly an externalist and an objectivist in the philosophical sense of the those words, and as I have tried to explain, Reinin's Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy is clearly very resemblant of, and in some ways identical to, how those terms are understood in a philosophical framework.
And I and Expat can tell for sure that you do not know where you really belong. If you, or your disillusioned ego, are unable to see that, the lack of competence is on your side, not mine.Quote:
And I can tell for sure that Expat and I belong to the same Fi/Te group in Socionics. If you, or he, are unable to see that, the lack of competence is on your side, not mine.
Then I hope that it sufficed this time.Quote:
It was not my intention to brush it aside. It was nothing but the usual ILI way of attacking a thesis to see whether it will crack or survive the pressure. I was hoping you could come up with further arguments, because your explanation didn't answer all the questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Expat and I have but your choice to ignore them does not mean that they have gone unaddressed. If Einstein is proven to have consciously used and preferred :Ne: and :Ti:, then your entire insistence upon those dichotomies, philosophical or otherwise, are made thereby worthless. You call him a philosophical objectivist or externalist all you want, but Einstein was a clear :Ne::Ti: who had a different approach, attitude, and method of science and philosophy than your textbook objectivists: Newton, Darwin, and Hume.Quote:
If your explanation is not to simple, then we still have a problem with the Reinin dichotomy. Maybe the problem is the dichotomy itself in that case. And you still haven't addressed my arguments concering Einstein's externalism and objectivism in relation to that dichotomy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
I am glad you liked it.Quote:
That is indeed an interesting analysis, and I happen to agree with everything in it -- except from my reservations regarding Einstein. A couple of weeks ago I incidentally happened to discussed the differences between Newton and Leibniz (among others) with an INTj friend of mine, who is a mathematician and and expert in q-calculus, in order to find out whether he would confirm or disconfirm my hypotheses regarding general philosophical differences in attitude between INTjs and INTps. He criticized Newton's empiricist and "inexact" bent, and very much preferred Leibniz's more exact, formalistic approach.
Probably one of the those rare points where we actually agree, so it is worth noting. But as said, I mentioned it because it was the one point of the quoted section which seemed to require further expansion and one of the weakest points of the argument made.Quote:
Ganin himself seems to indicate that INTjs are typically more of generalists than ILIs (compare his ILI Uncovered profile), but the fact that :Ni: :Te: ILIs tend "more towards multiple-interests in wide disciplines" is definitely true, and that truth it is also clearly mentioned in the type profiles. That aspect of the differences between introverted and extraverted thinking is also mentioned in Jung's Psychological Types.
Yet you insist that your type is clear-cut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
But since those channels shape the input and output, then the content of what is said also matters. Also, since you say that preference of :Ti: or :Te: is more evident in the style of your writing, why do object so vehemently at people pointing out your :Ti:>:Te: style of writing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
BTW, Implied, I happen to enjoy Tetris, so I greatly appreciated and was amused by that pictorial analogy.
I will be redundant myself and say that this is one of the main points here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
As to your reasons, Phaedrus, they seem more political than anything else. You did not seem to disagree, or be able to counter-argue, the point about your very intensive use of :Ti: . Your main concern is that if attention is focused on your use of :Ti: , people will say, "he's INTj!" So you're basically saying, let's keep quiet about that issue so that people won't have odd ideas. Which is, again, a Fe-Ti argument.
But why should that matter? Let them think what they want. The only reason - or, ok, the main reason - why your own type is eventually brought into a discussion with you is because you end up raising it in the context of other people's types. That is a consequence of your own approach to typing by benchmarking, by "seeing patterns without really knowing the reasons".
The problem you have to face is that even those who'd agree that your are ILI will not necessarily agree to type others by benchmarking.
I certainly do not agree with that at all. And I think the lack of competence is totally on your side - due to the following.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
You keep coming back to :Ti: consistency. The thing is, I do not find it necessary to argue or even to conclude that your approach to types is logically inconsistent. It may well be logically consistent. It is simply not socionics, not as a system that defines types in ways that they will have their motivations as outlined in the quadras and therefore explain their intertype relationships.
You pay lip service to intertype relationships (but never as in quadras, btw) if pressed. But they are obviously totally outside the essence of your view of the types. You never make them the central point of your argument. I never saw any evidence that you truly understand that they are about, except by direct quotes of descriptions or self-evident points.
Which is why you may well have a typing system that is logically consistent and suits your own personal purposes.
It is simply not socionics.
And no, it's not about the "theory", Phaedrus. This is important to decide who is typed as what, too.
If you can type people correctly using only one of those dichotomies -- that's fine. But for someone with leading :Ni: it would probably help to have an additional angle, an additional dichotomy to look at it from. An ENTp friend of mine has said that he perceives INTps, like me, his brother, and a co-worker of his, as taxonomists. Regardless of whether we actually are taxonomists, I can understand why we are perceived as such. Do you agree with his observation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
I think that our different attitudes here reflect our different preferences for :Ni: systems and :Ti: systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
You prefer to hold on to one specific system, which you try to understand in its details as correctly as possible, and you try to leave everything out of it that isn't a logical implication of the system's basic premises. (That's how your attitude is perceived by me, anyway, and I would say that it is a typical bottom-up approach, a :Ti: approach.)
I prefer to compare as many systems as possible (external input), I collect facts in order to get something to work with. With all that chaotic information in front of me, I start to analyze it to see whether there is a general pattern to all this mess. And the more information I collect, the more different angles or perspectives I can use to see it from, the more easy it is for me to understand the essence of whatever it is that I am looking at. Things become clearer to me when the possible logical connections between different logical concepts (which you perhaps might call "boxes" in a taxonomy) increases. In a sense, adding another logical concept increases your abstract thinking capacity.
Einstein understood "truth" as correspondence with reality, which is the classical notion of the concept truth that I have tried to explain in several posts on this forum. He believed that reality exists in itself independently of our observations of it, and that is has a certain structure independently of our observations. That is exactly what it means to be a realist in a philosophical sense, and to an objectivist in for example epistemology is equivalent to being a realist in that area. Objectivism claims that there are universally valid truths, where "truth" is understood as correspondance with (objective) reality. Objectivism implies realism. So, it is obvious that Einstein was an objectivist and a realist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
It is a little bit more problematic to say for sure whether Einsten was truly an externalist or not, but it is more natural for an objectivist and a realist to adopt an externalist perspective in epistemology and theories of truth, because it is more natural (for such a creature) to think that it is ultimately reality itself that causes you to believe what you believe. It is reality itself that is the ultimate arbiter of whether your beliefs are true or false, and it is reality itself that is the ultimate arbiter of whether you have (objectively) good or bad reasons for yor beliefs.
Einstein seems to be an Objectivist in the socionic sense of the word, because he is an objectivist in the philosophical sense of the word, and those two meanings of the word "objectivist" are very similar, if not to say equivalent. Whether Einstein was also an externalist is not clear-cut, so we could leave that aspect out of the discussion for later.
I am in a much, much, much better position epistemologically to determine the truth of that thesis than both you and Expat. If you really think that you can determine my type better, more reliably, and more accurately than I can myself with my superior knowledge of how I am in real life, what my typical behaviours are, how I am perceived by others, what my test results are, how I look on V.I., what attitudes I have, what I identify with, what my intertype relations are like, what my energy rthythms are like, etc, etc, -- then it would be appropriate to call you an ignorant asshole and a super idiot. But of course you don't really think that, since you are far to intelligent to have such a stupid belief in the infallibility of your typing method, based on such a tiny evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Did you write it, and/or does it mean that we agree on the correctness of the analysis and the differences between the persons mentioned there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Good. That's a start. It is always a good thing to be able to establish some sort of common ground.Quote:
Probably one of the those rare points where we actually agree, so it is worth noting.Quote:
Ganin himself seems to indicate that INTjs are typically more of generalists than ILIs (compare his ILI Uncovered profile), but the fact that :Ni: :Te: ILIs tend "more towards multiple-interests in wide disciplines" is definitely true, and that truth it is also clearly mentioned in the type profiles. That aspect of the differences between introverted and extraverted thinking is also mentioned in Jung's Psychological Types.
Not to you of course, because your knowledge of me is limited. To me it is a closed case, however. My type is proven, according to the criteria used in Socionics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Yes, and that's what I said too. Of course the content matters, but it is not as reliable as an indication of your type as your style is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Because they are wrong about it. My :Te: > :Ti: preference is obvious in my style of writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Soooooo -- Logos is lying when he says he disagrees with you? To which purpose?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
VI, attitudes, and energy rhythms do not help much between INTp and INFp, do they? Especially in the case of Ni-focused IP? They are useful to differentiate INTj from INTp; not so much INFp from INTp. And my understanding is that he said you are INFp rather than INTp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
As for intertype relations: between INTp and INFp, they are tricky. Then we're talking about duality vs semi-duality, conflict vs supervision, superego vs look-alike, superego vs comparative, etc. Unless you truly understand, in their concepts, what those relationships truly imply, they're not really easy to apply to differentiate INTp from INFp. The best is to see the relationships with ENFj, ESTj, ENTj, ESFj and see which are supervision, mirror, conflict.
So, unless you can really make a clear case in terms of these relationships - and if you really think VI, energy, etc really help to differentiate INTp from INFp, I suggest you drop these arguments from the list.
Phaedrus, you write like an ILI.
You also have a skill with words; at being able to shape them around for your own agenda (which many, not just I, have noticed in the past, and thus I will not bring them up here).
Why can you not stick with ILI - what is the problem that's withholding you from knowing you are ILI?
Best post ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezra
This is a good point; one that I hope people on this forum would take in account more often when they brazenly go off claiming a 'mistype' as regards a person they have never met in real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
NO WAY. He is factual through and through. Have you ever read anything of his? He throws fact after fact (even if they're pointless) at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
That's because he's a scientist! Scientists are based on Te, and because it is all-encompassing, Ti is kind of joined with it. Read about Ti as a 7th function - you'll see what I mean when I say Dawkins is LSE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
I agree with Bertrand Russell (LII). That doesn't make me an LII.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
As I said, science is all about Te, so the only simplification of concepts necessary is that which means people know what compound "big" words are.Quote:
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 made a thread, especially for Richard Dawkins and his typing. Phaedrus replied. About 60 people viewed. What a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
HahahahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Ezra
@ezra: i disagree that science is mainly about Te. science about Ti: developing systems, categories, classifications, and timelines to explain Te facts and data. it's Ti and Te working together. scientific research is inherently system oriented as well.
-5 ezra :P
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
I don't know. Or maybe he isn't lying. Maybe it was meant as kind of twisted joke. But he can always come to his senses and realize his mistake. It is of course stupid of anyone to think that they can type me (Phaedrus) better than I can myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
That's what I think he meant too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
We agree on that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Of course my "list" didn't include every aspect of what I know of my type. It is very clear that I have a relation of conflict with ESFjs, and that ENTjs are my mirrors. That you and I are mirrors should also be pretty obvious to anyone who has followed our debates recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
The easiest way (but not the only) to tell whether I am an INTp or an INFp is to look at, for example, Rick's list of manifested differences in behaviours, talking style, V.I., etc, etc. between logical and ethical types. According to those critera (and every other similar criteria used in Socionics) it is clear as day that I am a logical type. Everything in Rick's list strongly indicates logical type for me. Nothing in that list indicates ethical type. How do you explain that phenomenon, given the assumption that I am an INFp?
I know. Your observation skills are superior to some others on this forum in that respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezra
Thanks. I know that too. English is not my native language, so I make some mistakes in grammar, and my vocabulary is limited. But I have a natural skill with the Swedish language, which I have developed through the years by a lot of writing, by taking creative writing courses, and by finishing an education to become a Swedish language consultant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezra
I have sticked with ILI almost since my first posts on forum. Nothing is withholding me from knowing that I am an ILI. I know for a fact that I am an ILI. The problem is that some other person's on this forum seem to be obsessed with proving that I am not. They will never succeed, of course, but the keep on trying anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezra
Shit, this is what I meant to say. Spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond8