Example of Te reacting to Fe role criticism

[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.

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".

Exactly my point too.

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.

[Subteigh]

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.

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.

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.

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'.

[Phaedrus]

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.

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 is

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.

Everything is interpreted from the subject's perspective.

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:

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'.

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?

Leading function. Thank you, come again.

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).

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.

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.

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.

In what sense do you think that Einstein's view of the universe is Kantian?

The existence of a priori universal truths which are partially dependent upon our ability to perceive them through our perceptions via phenomenon.

And which would be the a priori truths in Einstein's view of the universe?

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.

Here you show that you neither understand Kant, Einstein, Expat, nor yourself.

I certainly do. Everything I say here is true. What exactly is it that you don't understand in this?

[Phaedrus]

Which point? I meant that I would only reject the Copenhagen interpretation in the face of evidence.

Yes.

As long as there is no such evidence, I would accept it as a possibility.

Yes. Typical ENTj attitude.

I think Einstein was wrong to reject it simply because of that "God and dice" argument.

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.

I much prefer Bohr's stance in the matter. You seem to have gotten my views backwards.

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 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.

[Subteigh]

In what sense do you think that Einstein's view of the universe is Kantian?

The existence of a priori universal truths which are partially dependent upon our ability to perceive them through our perceptions via phenomenon.

And which would be the a priori truths in Einstein's view of the universe?

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.

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 .

[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.

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.

Your claim that things are Objective rests on the assumption that something is Objective if it can't be proved false

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?

just because something can't be proved false doesn't make it incontrovertible fact.

Of course not. What on earth has made you believe that I would have that ridiculous view?

You might say objective laws exist outside human experience, but again, that is your opinion, and what good is it to anybody?

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.

At least with a relativist approach, things can be shown to be at least conditionally true, and working in practice.

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.

[Subteigh]

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?

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.

[Phaedrus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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 is

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.

Everything is interpreted from the subject's perspective.

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:

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'.

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.

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?

Leading function. Thank you, come again.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

I do not like to presume, so you are going to have be quite explicit with me.

In what sense do you think that Einstein's view of the universe is Kantian?

The existence of a priori universal truths which are partially dependent upon our ability to perceive them through our perceptions via phenomenon.

And which would be the a priori truths in Einstein's view of the universe?

See Subterranean's response.

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.

Here you show that you neither understand Kant, Einstein, Expat, nor yourself.

I certainly do. Everything I say here is true. What exactly is it that you don't understand in this?

[/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.

[Subteigh]

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.

If his views were only proven after he thought them, then how weren't his views established a priori?

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.

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.

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'?

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.

[Expat]

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).

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.

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.

[Expat]

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.

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.

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.

In socionics terms, that is and not .

[Phaedrus]

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.

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.

I do not like to presume, so you are going to have be quite explicit with me.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

If his views were only proven after he thought them, then how weren't his views established a priori?

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.

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.

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'?

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).

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.

[Phaedrus]

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.

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.

[Gilly]

BLAH! BLAHBLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH! BLAAAAHHHH! BLABLABLABLABLAAAAHHHHHHH!

...Blah?

[Phaedrus]

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.

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.

In socionics terms, that is and not .

No. Or even if we could decide to call it , we should definitely not emphasize the importance of talking about in that way, because people get confused about it. It is certainly not the most essential feature of , and when you and others say things like that (conceptual logic and logical reasoning in general = ) people inevitably get the wrong ideas about the types.

[Expat]

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.

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.

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.

[Expat]

No. Or even if we could decide to call it , we should definitely not emphasize the importance of talking about in that way, because people get confused about it. It is certainly not the most essential feature of , and when you and others say things like that (conceptual logic and logical reasoning in general = ) people inevitably get the wrong ideas about the types.

That's the single most illuminating post you ever wrote.

[Phaedrus]

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.

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.

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.

We don't disagree on anything substantial here, but the things said in the Reinin quotes about Subjectivists being relativists etc. are related to and , not to and .

[Expat]

We don't disagree on anything substantial here, but the things said in the Reinin quotes about Subjectivists being relativists etc. are related to and , not to and .

Since is intrinsically related to and to , what you just said makes no sense.

[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 and , not to and .

Since is intrinsically related to and to , what you just said makes no sense.

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.)

[Expat]

Here's something for your superior thinking capacity to consider then.

The only way you even discuss and 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 and then?

[Phaedrus]

The only way you even discuss and is by resorting to that dichotomy. You don't seem to be able to even discuss it. Yet that is not central to socionics definitions of those functions.

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 and -- not as they are defined, but as they actually are.

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?

Yes, and that's what I am trying to discuss. But you can't understand the true nature of 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).

Your whole "understanding" of those functions is totally confused.

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.

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.

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.

How would you define and then?

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 and , but it is a clear mistake to think that it is necessary to define the words.

And do you even begin to understand what I mean when I say that they are intrinsically linked to and ?

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.

[Phaedrus]

Yes, and that's what I am trying to discuss. But you can't understand the true nature of 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).

Which means that you derive your whole understanding of Ti from the following:

- That one paragraph says that Ti types are subjectivists
- you relate that to the philosophical concept of subjectivists

Your logical error here has the form: If A then B. B, therefore A.

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.

[Expat]

Ok, then from where else did you get your understanding of what Ti is as distinct from Te?

[Expat]

By the way, by any socionics definition, your logical argument is based on sheer . That is, yes, the essence of in socionics.

[Phaedrus]

Ok, then from where else did you get your understanding of what Ti is as distinct from Te?

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.

By the way, by any socionics definition, your logical argument is based on sheer . That is, yes, the essence of in socionics.

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: " , , !!!" ... (pause) ... "LII, LII, LII!!!"

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.

[Expat]

And that's why we have a problem, Houston. Why do we have a problem?

Who's "we", pale-face?

[Logos]

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 () and Serious () 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- 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 ! This is kind of like how you insist that your flagrant use of 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 and somehow ignored because what he theorized appeared to conform to the reality of ?

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 who enjoys probability and gambling. Einstein, like Kant, Spinoza, and Leibniz, wanted a logical view for the universe and not the "just because it is" that represented; "just because" explanations never bodes well for dominant-.

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.

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 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 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 nightmare for students who inclines toward a more intuitive approach to understanding this subject. In any case, understanding of the world is quite global and far-reaching; and as such is not less innovative than , they are just expressed in a different way. Also, tends more towards multiple-interests in wide disciplines, an indication of the secondary function. The spiritual bent of together with was characteristic of Newton who fervently pursued such things as Alchemy and scripture interpretation.

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 side to establish any difference. I think that the 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.

[krieger]

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.

[Expat]

Einstein, like Kant, Spinoza, and Leibniz, wanted a logical view for the universe and not the "just because it is" that represented; "just because" explanations never bodes well for dominant-.

I agree with what you've said; I just wouldn't describe the 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".

[Logos]

Einstein, like Kant, Spinoza, and Leibniz, wanted a logical view for the universe and not the "just because it is" that represented; "just because" explanations never bodes well for dominant-.

I agree with what you've said; I just wouldn't describe the 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".

Thank you, I appreciate the correctness.

[detail]

Logos & Expat:


Phaedrus:

[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.

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.

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 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 () and Serious () aspects.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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- 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 ! This is kind of like how you insist that your flagrant use of 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 and somehow ignored because what he theorized appeared to conform to the reality of ?

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.

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.

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 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 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 nightmare for students who inclines toward a more intuitive approach to understanding this subject. In any case, understanding of the world is quite global and far-reaching; and as such is not less innovative than , they are just expressed in a different way. Also, tends more towards multiple-interests in wide disciplines, an indication of the secondary function. The spiritual bent of together with was characteristic of Newton who fervently pursued such things as Alchemy and scripture interpretation.

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 side to establish any difference. I think that the 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.

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.

Ganin himself seems to indicate that INTjs are typically more of generalists than ILIs (compare his ILI Uncovered profile), but the fact that 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.

[Expat]

A general remark always worth making.

and are functions, not the types that have them. Obviously a LII will "temper" his with a healthy dose of , and vice-versa for a LIE. As has been often said, a pure or 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 , just like a LII will also use .

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 or , 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 , it's likely that the functional preference is ; the same going for .

If said person more often dismisses in favor of 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?

[Expat]

There is nothing at all in Socionics that suggests another type than ILI as more likely or even possible for me

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.

[Phaedrus]

I think that this is a very central point of what socionics is all about. Disagreements?

No. But I would like to emphasize the importance of realizing that whether you prefer or 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.

[Phaedrus]

There is nothing at all in Socionics that suggests another type than ILI as more likely or even possible for me

Isn't that too sweeping a statement to make about anyone and any type?

No. Some person's types are clear-cut, especially when you have had a chance to meet them IRL.

"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.

Yes, the fact that I am an ILI is an absolute truth, and I have legitimate reasons for claiming that.

[Expat]

whether you prefer or is more evident in the style of your writing (the form of your argument) than in its content.

Why?