Specifically, how do you come to believe what you do?
![]()
Ætiological - isolates mechanisms for direct causation while exploring a system.
Bayesian - tends to include extraneous a priori considerations to improve calculations.
Fatalist - believes that future/past can be deduced from knowledge of present circumstances.
Frequentist - refuses to respect anything but empirical evidence and its empirical probability.
Inconclusive - has no specific preference in a rational basis, or is simply inconsistent.
Nomothetic - reasons using a comprehensive system of diagnostic references and the intuition.
Pyrrhonian - will doubt anything in any context, even skepticism itself.
Solipsist - identifies all convictions with the premise that only the mind really exists.
Stochastic - likes to interpret according to high recurrence and correlativity.
Specifically, how do you come to believe what you do?
![]()
Testicular - my head is my penis
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I don't like the question.
i dont really like it either, it sounds like everyone will use raw data to come to decisions. Raw data sounds like statistics. that's the impression i get.
lol
how could I forget?Originally Posted by FDG
MOTOR SPEED
Since you are so worried about contradicting your own personal definitions allow me to suggest that you are Nomothetic. However, if you cannot recognize consciousness as raw data because it has never been so before you are Frequentist; if you think there are other reasons which might prevent you from recognizing consciousness as raw data you are Bayesian; if you prefer to check how often consciousness and raw data overlap you are Stochastic; if you think that consciousness is not raw data because it is the byproduct of processing raw data you are Ætiological; if you think that consciousness will result every time raw data is processed you are Fatalist; if you do not recognize that consciousness is raw data because you think that they are really both just illusions you are Solipsist; if you are still skeptical that conscious qualia can be truly considered as raw data you might be Pyrrhonian; if you are still not sure what to choose then choose Inconclusive.
How come my proposal for a disnjuct set of interpretative means has been discarded with such velocity?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
My interpretative means came with definitions, are accredited forms of epistemological justification, and are not meant to be mutually exclusive (otherwise I would have used the single-choice method...also, if you are referring to your first post then that is not a set; it is a single option). Assuming that you have more imaginative verifiers I feel I must encourage you to begin your own thread.
Last edited by Nexus; 06-10-2008 at 08:08 PM.
I would also like to thank everyone that is actually voting for doing so.
Btw, I choose "frequentist" and "stochastic"; I think they tend to be indissoluble given that the frequentist interpretation is the 2-d for of the stochastic interpretation.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if at t=1 I take an instantaneous picture of the probability distribution of the events that occurred in the interval between t0 and t1, repeat the process n times, then try to infer what will occur n+1 times, am I not using the two approaches togheter? Although at lim t(0)-t(1)=0, it could be said that the approach becomes purely stochastic, maybe
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
You can be stochastic and frequentist or stochastic and bayesian, but not bayesian and frequentist. However, if you decide to select both I can interpret this as a preference for statistical methods without a rational/empirical bias.
Last edited by Nexus; 06-11-2008 at 03:30 PM.
Argh
You're killing me, smalls.
Also I didn't realize it was a multi-choice poll (what category does that go under?) but I might have also picked stochastic. Honestly though I don't get this stuff at all.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
I suppose to begin with, I have a Pyrrhonian approach. This isn't practical, however, which means I also fit into the Inconclusive category.
I think I use the Bayesian approach by giving different weightings to different things - even considerations which are seemingly complete nonsense should be considered. If there are multiple factors, I consider the impact of each factor if that factor was true. If it is non-existent ot insignificant, it can be ignored, or at least reduced to a secondary factor. This is related to the Etiological approach, I guess.
The Nomothetic approach is good for making rules of thumb and quickly making something of use - the understanding of how precisely everything works comes later. The Stochastic approach I use all the time to avoid getting killed.
Wikisocion
Socionics Links
Enneagram Links
A Socionics Test
Other Socionics Tests
Socionics Test Rating Project
Socionics types and Music Preference
Personality Traits of American Cities / Counties
Interesting Psychology Articles
Personality Traits Correlations
A Biased Reading List
Google Scholar Alerts
Type movie suggestions
Random Pictures Thread
Interesting Articles Thread
Best Countries To Emigrate To, Possibly
Common methods of justifying novel premises epistemologically tend to favor one of two ideologies:
- Fatalist - believes that future/past can be deduced from knowledge of present circumstances
These are the two ideological premises from which the six poll methods (with the exception of inconclusive) can be derived: Ætiological, Nomothetic, and Solipsist arguments can be seen primarily as assertions of determinism, whereas Bayesian, Frequentist, and Pyrrhonian frames of reference always adhere to a statistical approach. There is also another undercurrent running in this poll: Frequentist and Ætiological justifications tend to employ an exclusively empirical underpinning; Nomothetic and Bayesian inferences depend heavily on a priori convictions (solipsism is also usually defended using the a priori because a posteriori attempts at verification are not widely credited; Pyrrhonism may seem like an analytic proposition at first but it actually only indoctrinates an inductive negation of premises, including the self-negation of any premise that might eventually support a rationalist Pyrrhonian criterion, and so is actually an [anti-] empirical enterprise - I have taken great pains to clarify this in the past; you can hear my detailed arguments here). I think it would be interesting to see if statistical empirical methods are favored by sensing irrational temperaments and deterministic rational frameworks by rational intuitive types (or the opposite in a subconscious response to the limitations of the dominant form of information metabolism)...
- Stochastic - likes to interpret according to high recurrence and correlativity
Last edited by Nexus; 06-13-2008 at 04:28 PM.
I had to choose five of them, and I almost had to choose 6. How many did other people choose
Pyrrhonists never stop doubting; they employ a very extreme form of skepticism, so if you ever come to definite conclusions you are probably not one of them. Nomothetical ideologies are abstract taxonomies that are arranged a priori mainly for inductive use (and also deductive use, indirectly). Once you have gathered the data, do you separate the elements by what they are generally expected to do independently or do you combine some of them under the conditions in question to see if you can get a holistic, synergistic manifestation? I agree that for determinism, nomothetic approaches tend to favor generalization and abstraction. If this description elucidates your position then feel free to vote (Thanks in advance for your contribution!).
Last edited by Nexus; 06-17-2008 at 11:10 PM.
i'm pretty sure i'm a pyrrhonist but i'm not certain.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Solipsist, until I discover more.
It gives me complete power over everything in my life.
Well if you are certain that you have feelings of uncertainty (or distrust), then you are definitely not Pyrrhonist. Pyrrhonists are never certain of things like that. Because you are referring to discrepancies that are abstract and passively determined, your second statement seems like it would depend mostly on Nomothetic arguments.
The Skeptic Way is a disposition to oppose phenomena [things perceived] and noumena [things reasoned or assumed] to one other in any way whatever, with the result that owing to the equipollence [balancing of arguments] among the things and statements thus opposed, we are brought first to epoche [suspension of judgment] and then to ataraxia [freedom from worry] - Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism 1:9, translated by Mates 1996
![]()
As you said you are not a philosopher, but if you are going to be a skeptic I suggest that you not rely on dictionary definitions (I would be skeptical of them). According to the tenet of Equipollence, the notion that you are not certain that you are uncertain should be given equal weight to the notion that you are certain that you are uncertain.