It's obvious that you never said those exact words.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
It's obvious that you never said those exact words.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Why do you assume that you understand me better than I do, when you don't actually know me? You know about 10% of my whole - what I write on here i.e. the way I write; the way I conduct myself. And you act like you have full access to every aspect of me. I do. Which is why I can afford to make founded claims about my type.Originally Posted by Rocky
Just because you have studied a part of my behaviour does not mean you can induce that I am a type I know I'm not.
Anyway, there's a very good description on www.bestfittype.com concerning ENTJ and ESTP mistypes.
I never claimed to know your type. I just said people in general are incompetant with this sort of thing.Originally Posted by Ezra
Quotes should be 100 % correct. It is irrelevant whether I have said something similar or not. If you put words in the form of a quote they must be correct, even though unintentional typos are excusable. There is no excuse for deliberately misquoting someone.Originally Posted by Rocky
It is not obvious to someone who is new to the forum, it is not obvious to those who havent' followed the debate, and it might not be obvious to anyone in two years from now, if they accidentally come across that quote. Quotes must be correct. Period.Originally Posted by Joy
If you don't do it again, I will let it pass.
Exactly.Originally Posted by FDG
OMG look at all that and
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Reply to my other post too pleaseOriginally Posted by Phaedrus
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
There is a good prediction that someone who gets the test result ENTJ is an ENTj. The type descriptions can be more or less similar or different depending on the author. But I still claim that since the criteria for the four scales are, for all practical purposes, identical in Socionics and MBTT the group of people that are called ENTJs in MBTT must consist predominantly of ENTjs. And another strong reason for that is that many things in the MBTT type descriptions are taken from observations of people who have actually got the test result "ENTJ" on MBTI tests.Originally Posted by FDG
Both systems use similar tests, and if not both the Socionics and the MBTI tests are extremely inaccurate and give us incorrect results more often than not, then most people who get the result "ENTJ" are ENTjs, and a consequence of that is that all correctly identified ENTJs are ENTjs. If you don't think that the the type descriptions are clear enough to establish that correlation, there is something wrong with the type descriptions -- not with the types themselves.
Of course not everyone that tests as ENTJ is an ENTj, and not everyone that tests as ENTJ is an ENTJ either. I don't know whether Ezra is really an ENTJ or not. I have only said that if he is definitely (= correctly typed as) ENTJ, then he is also an ENTj.Originally Posted by FDG
That's only if you consider your POV to be an undeniable fact, rather than your own point of view.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Yes. A POV doesn't have to mean it's a fact/reality to EVERYONE. It may be the truth to you, or you recognise it as a fact, but it does not necessarily mean it is to someone else.Originally Posted by Subterranean
INTp
sx/sp
No. If your point of view is a correct representation of reality, then it is true. If something is an undeniable fact, it is not only something that you think is true, and also is true -- it is also something that you know is true. You can have a true belief without knowing that it is a true belief. But you can't have a belief without thinking that it is true.Originally Posted by Subterranean
Correct. People have different beliefs. What one person believes to be true another person might think is false. That is no problem, since beliefs are not the same thing as true beliefs. Some beliefs are true, and some beliefs are false. But a POV is not the same thing as a fact either.Originally Posted by Mea
You have misunderstood the concepts "truth" and "fact". A fact is a fact, and whether you or anyone else recognizes it as a fact or not is irrelevant. If it really is a fact, it is a fact independently of anyone's point of view. And if a statement (a proposition) really is true, then it is always true independently of anyone's point of view, and independently of whether the truth is recognized or accepted as a truth or not. What is true and what is false is not decided in a poll or in a democratic process. Truth is eternal and independent of everyone's point of view. It exists (as do facts) no matter what we decide to think about it.Originally Posted by Mea
I don't consider my POVs to be correct - I consider them to be my POV. My POV is only conditionally correct, and I recognise that I may never be certain that my POV is correct. I know that something isn't correct merely because I think it is correct.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Is there an important difference in meaning between "POV" and "belief" to you? If so, could you explain that difference? I am talking about beliefs here, and you are clearly contradicting yourself if you say that:Originally Posted by Subterranean
1. You have the belief that p.
2. You don't believe that your belief that p is correct.
We have always agreed on the fact that we may never be certain that our POVs are correct. But again, that is to talk about knowledge -- not truth.Originally Posted by Subterranean
Originally Posted by Subterranean
The fact that you think something is The Truth doesn't make it so. You could be wrong, no matter how right you think you are. No one is infallible.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
No one can absolutely positively KNOW something. And there's no such thing as an absolute PROOF of anything, either. I seriously do not understand how anyone could think otherwise. It's so ridiculous to me that talking about it makes my head hurt, so I have no interest in debating the matter. Sure, we have to work under the assumption that things are true in order to function, but that's different.
I 'believe' that the Sun will rise again tomorrow - but I don't think that my belief is necessarily correct, because I know that there is a possibility that the Sun might not rise again tomorrow.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Oh well, depends. I know that right now I'm writing on my keyboard.Originally Posted by Joy
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I completely agree with that.Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
If I had to guess Phaedrus's type, I'd say INFp. He seems to have the -Ni/+Ne thing going on, but he doesn't have the logic to organize it.
That's an example of something that you are as close as you could possibly be to KNOWING. Even that isn't 100% absolute though.Originally Posted by FDG
How do you know that? If what you say is true, then of course you can't know that no one can absolutely positively know something -- and that was exactly what you said too. So, it is possible that you are wrong, and if you are someone might in fact absolutely positively know something.Originally Posted by Joy
That is also something that you can't know for sure -- unless you have a proof of it ... So, if you are right about what you say here, there might be an absolute proof of something.Originally Posted by Joy
I agree with that. I haven't said that you have to believe that your belief is necessarily correct, only that you have to believe that it is correct. Logically necessary truths is a sub-set of the set of truths.Originally Posted by Subterranean
Of course it's possible that I'm wrong. That's always a possibility.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Then we seem to agree on the important points. I hope you also realize that the possibility of being wrong presupposes the existence of objective truths. If truth were relative, no one would be wrong -- and of course no one would be right either. Therefore truth is not relative.Originally Posted by Joy
Is it possible that you are wrong?
It definitely is, especially if I say "0.01 seconds before this sentence was written I was writing on my keyboard".Originally Posted by Joy
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Of course it is possible that I am wrong about a lot of things -- but I don't believe that I am. And just because something is possible, it doesn't mean that it is likely, and it doesn't mean that it is true either. To say that it is possible that someone is wrong is not an argument against that person's claims .Originally Posted by Joy
It's possible to have some relative truths being more true than others, without any of them being objective. If you say someone is wrong, that is a relative truth too.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
From a subjective point of view truths can appear absolute... but the more objective you make your lense, the more and more relative truth starts to appear... eventually it becomes so uncertain one starts to doubt the existence of truth altogether, instead viewing it as a silly construct dreamed up by humans looking for absolutes in a sea of inconstancy. Generally everything is relative. There are possibilities and probabilities, some of which can be rounded to absolutes or certainties... but generally nothing can truly be certain. If one tries to argue about it logically that will fail, because logic is very small... it is insufficient. Eventually all logic starts going in circles that make no sense...
That's pretty much my perspective as well.Originally Posted by Loki
writing on your keyboard as in taking pen/pencil/writing implement to make marks onto your keyboard???Originally Posted by FDG
or using the keyboard to "write" on your screen?
Here is an example of believing one's POV to be the truth, YOU know what you meant.....
but it not quite fitting "reality" due to the mental structure of the POV, and quite possibly the language being used to describe that POV/"reality".
In this is one of the ways in which MBTI and Socionics differ. The languages used to describe an INTp is often quite different from the language being used to describe an INTP. Just because they use the same word/acronym, doesn't mean that they are describing the same thing....
Just as if my daughter were to tell me she's "writing on her keyboard", I could not be sure she was using the keyboard to "write" on her screen.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Originally Posted by Ezra
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
That's a misuse of the word "true". You are talking about something else than I am talking about.Originally Posted by Subterranean
Almost every time you seem to confuse the two logically distinct concepts truth and knowledge. If I say that someone is wrong, I am stating a belief of mine. That belief is either true or false (and nothing else). My statement that someone is wrong is coming from a perspective that is relative in the sense that it is my perspective, and that not every person in the world shares that perspective. But that doesn't tell us anything about the truth value of my statement, because truth has nothing to do with perspectives. You are not using the word "true" correctly, and the reason why you don't is probably that you automatically think of knowledge in relation to the word "truth".If you say someone is wrong, that is a relative truth too.
"truth" is a funny thing. being humans and not "god", we are limited by our human brains and thus limited to the interpretations of the world that those brains give us. As humans, we could never "know" that what our brain has perceived and interpreted is 100% objective or "true". We can pretty much only have varying degrees of personal certainty...or "beliefs". But we can never have full knowledge nor "know truth" of our environment. So while you can talk all you want about "that belief is either true or false and nothing else", you can't do more than rely on your own personal certainty as to it's truthness or falseness....of that, I am certain.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I think this thread has conclusively crossed the line into "Matrix" territory. Where's Neo?? And how do we all know we're not just generating this consensual "reality" but really hooked up to power our all-powerful cyber-captors??
socio: INFp - IEI
ennea: 4w5 sp/sx
**********
Originally Posted by Mark Twain
I will try again to explain why some of you are confusing the two distinctly different concepts truth and knowledge, using Loki's post as an example.
Correction. From a subjective point of view beliefs can appear to be absolutely true. But we usually don't know whether they are or not.Originally Posted by Loki
Correction. The more objective you make your lense, the more relative our beliefs start to appear.Originally Posted by Loki
What becomes uncertain is not truth itself but whether we have access to it or not. We know that every one of our beliefs is either true or false, but we don't know which. There is nothing uncertain about truth, it is our beliefs that are uncertain.Originally Posted by Loki
It is rather easy to see that that statement is false, because it is a logical contradiction (and every logical contradiction is necessarily false). If everything is relative, the statement that everything is relative is also relative. But the statement itself claims to be generally true, which it can't be if everything is relative. So, we can dismiss the statement on the grounds that is presupposes what it denies.Originally Posted by Loki
Even I can agree with what you say here (if we understand it in a not too strictly philosophical sense), but you are not talking about truth here, you are talking about knowledge.Originally Posted by Loki
Logic is not the answer to everything in the world, and in that sense it is perhaps "small" and "insufficient". But it will not fail when we use it to analyze arguments, because its existence is presupposed by everyone of us every time we think, and it does not fail when we use it to show that some arguments are valid and some invalid.Originally Posted by Loki
Only to those who don't understand it. Not everyone can think logically to the same extent, because not everyone is equally intelligent. But the ability to think logically can be improved by training and studies, just as you can improve your results on IQ tests by training and education.Originally Posted by Loki
Human knowledge equals truth because we can only use human experience and judgments to determine 'truth' - what Anndelise said :wink:. Even if there was some kind of objective truth independent of humans, we can never be certain of it - our knowledge is what we consider to be true at a particular moment in time - so truth and knowledge should be considered the same thing by the individual. The more objective the truth, the less useful it is - what is an example of an objective truth anyway? I can't think of one.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
LMAO who was the other person who voted "all of the time"?
Here is one: There are truths that no human will ever know of.Originally Posted by Subterranean