I am not sure what you mean, but thanks anyway.Originally Posted by dee
Yes I thought so too, and thanks for responding. I believe that ultimately I will turn out to be an ENTj-like INTp (logical subtype) or an INTp-like ENTj (intuitive subtype); deciding which of these I am is in all actuality the problem...
Last edited by Nexus; 06-13-2008 at 04:43 AM.
bump
so many bump posts are highly annoying.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Here's a better one...
Last edited by Nexus; 06-18-2008 at 03:05 PM.
I don't get it. Are you trying to be sexy or intimidating or is that how you really are? Because it just looks... fake to me. What do you get out of appearing so hard?
I'm trying to figure out my type...could you be more specific?
How do I look fake, hard, intimidating, or sexy?
Those are all very different things!
What do you mean by energetic? It doesn't take much energy to post things in a forum...and thanks for not thinking that I'm sexy, hard, or intimidating...as you say that I have Se hidden agenda, do you think that I am ENXp? BTW, everything I have said on this forum is true to the degree that I am aware (whether it seems fake or not). I can't substitute something less boring to help you type me if it doesn't exist...With the exeption of fake, I don't think you look like any of the things you listed. But I'm not really a chick so it doesn't really matter what I think.
FWIW, I think your overall temperament is much, much more energetic than an INTp's would be... and you're trying waaay too hard to give off a certain resolute image to your audience, which points to Se hidden agenda, and this is making you look fake.
But just for the record, it doesn't look that fake to me, just kinda boring and unnecessary. But members of beta quadra such as bulletsanddoves are probably overly sensitive to overtures of non-idealized or FeTi-lacking Se (for which I don't blame them).
But yeah, I'd say find your dual and he or she can give you good pointers on how to elegantly project power.
didn't come across as 'fake' to me--at all.
i wish i could help you more... do you have any new ideas as to your type..? gamma NT is the result i keep coming to... i'm interested what you think.
Not really...I still don't know much about socionics, and the more I learn (model A, subtypes, Reinin dichotomies) the less certain I become. I am fairly confident that I am NT though, everything I do has a logical basis whether I have consulted my own emotions or not, and I certainly gain more information from my intuition than my senses. Either of these characteristics may have a lot to do with the fact that I generally tend to prefer rational to empirical forms of inference on a very fundamental level. Thanks for trying to help; I hope that something more conclusive will soon come to light, and if I learn of anything I will certainly let you know.
Huitzilopochtli, do you have a strong preference for (inclination for focusing on) either the analytical tradition in philosophy (the Humean tradition, empiricism, logical positivism, naturalism, a scientific approach, objectivism ...) or the continental tradition (the Kantian tradition, phenomenology, hermeneutics, existentialism, German idealism, non-naturalism, a human perspective, subjectivism ...) -- including perhaps also a disregard for the other (opposing) tradition?
Because if you answer Phaedrus's question, Huitzilopochtli, it will ultimately prove nothing related to Socionics.
It might.
But empirically, it will most likely not.
It will most likely do.
It will not empirically speaking. You are merely creating a false categorical dichotomy that is not empirically founded. (Then you will say that it is, then I will say that it is not, lather, rinse, and repeat.) I just happen to know that I am right in this case.
Thanks, and not at all! I didn't know that you were actually referring to the video...it was recorded in haste and I did not have any time to warm up so I must agree that it was sloppily executed. I actually enjoy playing guitar a lot so I am highly motivated to physically play it and I come from a thrash metal / neoclassical shred background so I am used to jerking my guitar around at high speeds while playing and head-banging at the same time.
I find that it is very hard to separate one from the other; if one excessively favors a certain method, upon close inspection it is found in actuality to be a specialized and dependent subset of the other only with distinct tendencies...ultimately I would tend to favor the analytic process; though I'd hate to criticize continental philosophy on the basis of falsification (you can actually find a very long refutation of Popper's criterion somewhere in this thread so perhaps a better reason would be Quine-Duhem Thesis and Quine is definitely analytical and not continental), I very much adhere to consistency as a virtue and I find that it is often lacking in non-analytical enterprises; because it relies on a fundamentally coherent as opposed to foundational frame of reference, the application of analytical heuristics often seems quite specialized in terms of the broader scheme that continental ideologies holistically address with ease, and so may be misinterpreted as inherently limiting. I am also most certainly not a logical positivist (as you can tell by the inference poll in my signature). What is your preference?
Labcoat and I are actually trying to formulate a socionics based on epistemic dichotomies; thus far it is consistent for NT types (which is possibly a coherently deliberate manifestation?).
Epistemic Dichotomies--i like the sound of that.
Epistemic Dichotomies as opposed to______??_____(the current state of the dichotomies)
ENTP:wink:
ALPHA
It will.
It is a true dichotomy, and it is empirically founded.
Maybe. If you insist on acting like an idiot.
No. You are wrong in this case.
Um..INTp. Has anybody said that yet?
Based on the information you have presented to the forum, I thought that you had studied enough philosophy to be able to clearly separate them. But if you can't, it will make it more difficult for us to use the information when we try to nail down your correct type.
It is more about having a different focus than about using different methods. One fundamental difference is that analytic philosophy focuses on Truth, whereas continental philosophy focuses on Meaning.
Yes. But what do you think about Kant, his approach and his conclusions? Kant is the origin of almost all continental philosophy.
If you can elaborate on this, it might give us a clue on what your type is. What exactly do you have against logical positivism? Do you agree on its general approach but dismiss it in the details (like Popper did) or do you disagree with it on a more fundamental level because you think that the whole mentality and scientific approach of the positivists is misguided? Nowadays we can speak more loosely about "positivism" as opposed to "hermeneutics" as two fundamentally different approaches to science and philosophy in general. It is this latter, less well-defined, meaning of the terms that is most useful to us in this context.
I have always found the problems and approaches that are typical of the analytical tradition more interesting and more correct than what the continental philosophers are doing. My general stance to continental philosophy is that it is mostly uninteresting and irrelevant. Some of the worst kind of philosophy has been produced in that tradition, in my opinion.
It would be the first time it would then.
Only in pudding.It is a true dichotomy, and it is empirically founded.
You are already doing a good enough job of that for the both of us.Maybe. If you insist on acting like an idiot.
False.No. You are wrong in this case.
The Phaedrus Way: When all else fails, call your opponent an idiot. This will resolve all issues.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
Amen.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
No, it will not. The issues will remain unsolved, because the idiots refuse to try to solve them.
Ah Phaedrus, how can I respond to that kind of wisdom?
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
We try, but you do not listen to reason or facts. You either sidestep the issue or try to rewrite the issue such that it must fit your system or be tossed out. Who then is the fool?
You of course.
I have studied philosophy but perhaps not to the depth that you have, my degree is in physics and mathematics but I also took some philosophy courses, including theory of knowledge (epistemology) and critical thinking (logic); I wanted to take philosophy of mind but I had to graduate. I believe that the analytical search for truth is based on the heuristics used in analysis, namely logic. Truth can thus be separated from falsity in any coherently-formulated system syntactically. Meaning is based on the collective impressions and connotations that accumulate in a foundationalist construct, and so is addressed by continental philosophy in a manner not unlike Quine's semantic holism. I agree with Quine (an analytical philosopher) that
- there is no distinction between analytical and synthetic arguments
- there are multiple ways to interpret experimental evidence
I believe that Kant's (analytical) contribution to epistemology, namely that truth is related to synthetic a priori propositions, is true though I think that it does not allow truth to be perfectly inducted as much as it blinds the observer's perspective from alternate possibilities as I noted in the second bulleted point (Quine-Duhem Thesis); also the value of truth inducted to support any constructs that are both synthetic and a priori is necessarily compromised by Hume's Problem of Induction (though on a lighter note, Hume's own conclusion can only be defended with inductions and so invalidates itself for anyone but the most devout of Pyrrhonists, who might consider the total uncertainty of the conjecture as opposed to the total validity in support of equipollence). I disagree with Popper for many reasons (not the least of which is that his own criterion of falsifiability is in itself unfalsifiable in any experiment designed to do so), my problem with Logical Positivism is that (like Hilary Putnam) I do not believe that analytic and synthetic arguments can be neatly divided into empirical and rational sets for separate verification (this is actually reminiscent of Berkeley's pure empiricism, and so I won't bother to refute the individual means used for each though I will agree that Popper's falsification of the empirical verifiers and Quine's negation of the rational verifiers were certainly warranted), I also disagree that all of knowledge as a foundationalist proposition can be collectively evaluated in its entirety using a single, exactly-defined set (which would have negated the independent validity of all of continental philosophy) of related heuristics (as was famously demonstrated by Kurt Gödel) though I agree that all of knowledge can be analytically evaluated in partially-defined coherentist sets and still accommodate semantic holism by ignoring the 'holistic' aspect of the arguments.
- all of human knowledge can be subjected to logical scrutiny (but not in the empirical or holistic senses of logical positivism; here I am perhaps the ultimate philosophical analyst)
INTp has been suggested by a lot of people, but I want to be sure that I am not any of the other NT types.Um..INTp. Has anybody said that yet?
In my opinion, neither of you have provided any reason or facts to support or refute a socionic analog to philosophy, but both of you insist on arguing about it.
hehe!
faster!
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Oh, is that you on the g'tar ?
Didn't know that.
ENTP
Is that you playing hockey?
It is not totally clear what you mean by this, and I'm not sure whether I agree with what you are trying to say here. That is in itself perhaps a slight indication of your type. And your next sentence is another indication that I would probably disagree with what you tried to say above.
No, it can't. And that has been proven by Gödel. You cannot separate true statements from false ones by their form. There are no general criteria for truth.
I believe that Quine's approach is fundamentally mistaken, at least in part.
I don't think that it is particularly important to decide whether there is a difference between analytical and synthetic statements, and that there are multiple ways to interpret experimental evidence is a totally trivial statement unless you want to conclude something more important from that, for example that there are multiple correct ways to interpret experimental evidence -- in which case I totally disagree with it.
No clear conclusions can be drawn from this, but especially the bolded part might indicate that you are a Subjectivist in the Reinin dichotomies.
I still maintain that the general form of your way of expressing your thoughts is indicative of
There are no strong indications of INTp in this post of yours, and there are at least some indications of INTj. My initial typing of you as INTj seems to have been corroborated, and so far it has not been in any serious danger of being falsified. Your most likely type is still INTj, based on what I know about you.INTp has been suggested by a lot of people, but I want to be sure that I am not any of the other NT types.
Phaedrus,
What is your interpretation in the link that exists between one's intellectual functio(#1) and one's personal knowledge function(#7)?....they are both considered strong...this has some effect on typing....
Do you have anything to add to this ?
ENTP
If there is not a criteria for truth then false propositions must also be true. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is not applicable to what I said because I am talking about coherentist systems which are necessarily incomplete, and not foundational ones which are as complete as the natural accumulation of language allows and are the unnatural mess that the Logical Positivists (like Bertrand Russell) were trying to consolidate - this is why they were susceptible to and suffered from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Why is Quine mistaken? That there are multiple ways to interpret experimental evidence is important because it shows that experimental evidence does not favor one theory over all of the rest unless there is only one theory that can accommodate the evidence, and there rarely is...if this wasn't the case then we wouldn't have Superstring Theory, Quantum Gravity, General Relativity, and many other equally supported but very different ways of interpreting the phenomenon of gravity. None of the theories have been completely falsified yet, and thus far General Relativity is the only one that has made useful predictions a priori so its validity has been somewhat supported in this manner. The distinction between analytical and synthetic is one that was made by the Logical Positivists and it is very important in the justification of beliefs, and though Kant was confident in the value of a priori synthetic arguments, Logical Positivists believed that all rational beliefs were necessarily both a priori and analytic, and that all empirical beliefs were necessarily both a posteriori and synthetic, and this premise (according the logical positivism) is incorrect though you may think that it is trivial. You are one of a very small number who believe that I am INTj (far more people have described me as INTp or ENTj). However, I will take your opinion into account. What would be a more INTp philosophical orientation?It is not totally clear what you mean by this, and I'm not sure whether I agree with what you are trying to say here. That is in itself perhaps a slight indication of your type. And your next sentence is another indication that I would probably disagree with what you tried to say above.
No, it can't. And that has been proven by Gödel. You cannot separate true statements from false ones by their form. There are no general criteria for truth.
I believe that Quine's approach is fundamentally mistaken, at least in part.
I don't think that it is particularly important to decide whether there is a difference between analytical and synthetic statements, and that there are multiple ways to interpret experimental evidence is a totally trivial statement unless you want to conclude something more important from that, for example that there are multiple correct ways to interpret experimental evidence -- in which case I totally disagree with it.
No clear conclusions can be drawn from this, but especially the bolded part might indicate that you are a Subjectivist in the Reinin dichotomies.
I still maintain that the general form of your way of expressing your thoughts is indicative of
There are no strong indications of INTp in this post of yours, and there are at least some indications of INTj. My initial typing of you as INTj seems to have been corroborated, and so far it has not been in any serious danger of being falsified. Your most likely type is still INTj, based on what I know about you.
Last edited by Nexus; 06-24-2008 at 01:26 AM.
You are probably right about that. Do you have any opinions on the matter? There are probably some socionic analogs to philosophy, but I just doubt the extremeties to which Phaedrus takes the argument such that it is impossible for-valuers to be subjective or of the continental school.
I cannot say for sure, I was only trying to evaluate the possibility of an empirical correlation between the two for subsequent speculation and verification and more speculation. If anything, I would think thatYou are probably right about that. Do you have any opinions on the matter? There are probably some socionic analogs to philosophy, but I just doubt the extremeties to which Phaedrus takes the argument such that it is impossible foris more conducive to continental philosophy, because the emotions are where subconscious meaning (which is absolute) is most likely to take precedence over reasoned truth (which depends on slight modifications in the construction of the argument, unless Phaedrus can prove otherwise).
Last edited by Nexus; 06-24-2008 at 04:26 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote