Originally Posted by wym123
Wait a few days and when you feel more calm, come back and read our exchanges. You might notice that my claims about how your arguments are full of F is not really nonsense. Please don't be offended and use this time to learn something about yourself and consider it an area you need to work on if you want to be better at using.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Ah, what the hell. I hope this is T enough for you (it's not a different approach than used before, so it's probably an employment of F-function. You must excuse.)
Absolutely not necessarily the case.3. Given this desire to learn, they probably end up accumulating vast amounts of knowledge. Furthermore, they probably have learned how to exercise abstract thinking, logical reasoning, clear analysis, mental cleverness, etc, very well and hence can use those mental facilities much better than others.
It is assumed that we are born the type we are. Ok, so you assume that we develop into types based on characteristics we develop as we grow up. I disagree. Let's move on:4. A majority of the upper echelon of these (those that are compulsive thinkers and learners) probably end up developing characteristics that are in NT types. Similarly a majority in the lower echelon (those that are moderate thinkers and learners (not compulsive) probably end up developing characteristics that are non-NT types. Finally, those that have not developed this desire at all are probably not NTs at all.
NTs are not the most obsessive thinkers and learners. They think and learn differently perhaps. I don't know where you are getting that from. Personal observation? And people do not develop into types. And people don't become intelligent. I argue that you are wrong. But let's see more:5. If we define these characteristics as intelligence, which is a very fair definition and probably the most intuitive definition (after all, what kind of people would you describe as "smart" or "intelligent"). It is clear that NT types are probably the more intelligent in general because the most obsessive thinkers and learners develop into NT types in general. Furthermore this characterization goes the other way: given an NT type, this person is probably intelligent, and became intelligent because this person had a strong desire to learn.
Oh what? So the application of knowledge needs to yield real results in order for the person to be intelligent? You defined intelligence as "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." Now by throwing the results into the mix, you are really opening a can of worms. So what results have to be yielded for the person to actually be intelligent. And you will need to revise your definition of intelligence.6. Because knowledge is included in the definition and because application of these facilities does not always yield real knowledge (i.e. believing wrong assumptions and working with them, which is typical for the those that are not educated), some NT types may actually be stupid because they do not have any real knowledge.
So basically I disagree.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Lol. It was so close
I can't stop!Lol. It was so close
We don't develop into types and we don't become intelligent and NTs are not the ones who compulsively learn and even if, that has nothing to do with intelligence and and and....
Ok, ok, you have a point, woodie :wink:
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Your reasoning?Absolutely not necessarily the case.
I have not seen any studies about whether our brains and mental development are determined at birth so I am just going to believe that it isn't the case at the moment. Perhaps there are studies and my belief is wrong. However, I can construct a similar set of reasoning with the other assumption. But first, I want to hear the reasoning behind your objections to the other parts of the arguments and whether you believe that our brain is determined at birth.It is assumed that we are born the type we are. Ok, so you assume that we develop into types based on characteristics we develop as we grow up. I disagree. Let's move on:
Your reasoning? You should get into the habit of explaining your reasoning instead of just saying "you are wrong" because it is rather impolite in a debate.NTs are not the most obsessive thinkers and learners. They think and learn differently perhaps. I don't know where you are getting that from. Personal observation? And people do not develop into types. And people don't become intelligent. I argue that you are wrong. But let's see more:
On the contrary, my definition is more restrictive than "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." Regardless, if I ignore the requirement that the application must result in real knowledge, then the amount of NT types that are considered intelligent increases because I said that one of the reasons why I think certain NT types are stupid is because they have no real knowledge. Basically, by loosening my definition, whether they know anything is irrelevant and, hence posession of knowledge is not a factor. In that case, we can talk about pure mental faculties and its applicability (potential application) on knowledge. In sum, I have not opened a can of worms at all. Think about it. My overall point still stands and that is, NT types are more intelligent overall.Oh what? So the application of knowledge needs to yield real results in order for the person to be intelligent? You defined intelligence as "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." Now by throwing the results into the mix, you are really opening a can of worms. So what results have to be yielded for the person to actually be intelligent. And you will need to revise your definition of intelligence.
So basically I disagree.
On the contrary, it is completely different. Perhaps the fact that I am being as precise and thorough as possible makes it much more difficult for you to misinterpret and fill your understanding with incorrect assumptions. It is also possible that since you acknowledged that you were being "emotional" in your posts, you are not making a conscious effort to avoid making the same mistake. A third possibility is that what you have said is far too little to draw any conclusions. When I see your reasoning, I will know whether you are "T enough."
You make the claims and don't back them up. Explain to me:
What makes you think that NTs are more eager to learn. What do you base that on? Function use? Personal observations? I already asked you that, by the way.
Isn't it commonly assumed that we are born with our level of intelligence and our type? It makes sense to me is all I am saying. You say this is not so, which seems to go against common consensus. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The requirement that the application of the knowledge results in real knowledge? You probably mean results. In that case, define results. What are the results that would render a person intelligent in your mind?Regardless, if I ignore the requirement that the application must result in real knowledge, then the amount of NT types that are considered intelligent increases because I said that one of the reasons why I think certain NT types are stupid is because they have no real knowledge.
Mental faculties and its applicability on knowledge? The ability to think in abstracts? Or what?Basically, by loosening my definition, whether they know anything is irrelevant and, hence posession of knowledge is not a factor. In that case, we can talk about pure mental faculties and its applicability (potential application) on knowledge. In sum, I have not opened a can of worms at all. Think about it. My overall point still stands and that is, NT types are more intelligent overall.
I will ignore the last paragraph. No need for T-reassurance on my part, thanks.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Mainly from my understanding of the functions and from NT types overall according to profiles. However I don't have a clear idea how I can construct my argument convincingly. Perhaps this argument is more "intuitive" and subjective." I will need to think some things over before I can clearly state my reasoning. However but you claimed that it is absolutely not true so you already have a refutation so why don't you tell me your refutation.
By the way, I just realized maybe I really don't have that strong of an argument for all NT types. I was really thinking more about INTj type and perhaps I was overgeneralizing too much into NT types.
I would really like to hear the reasoning behind this one too.
I wasn't aware that it is a common consensus. But anyway, yes I am against it not for any scientific reason. For the sake of the argument I am taking a position. I already know how I can construct my arguments for the other position because it isn't that much different.
Let's say you have an NT type that misinterprets the Theory of Relativity and the uses his reasoning skills to combine the Theory of Relativity with Socionics to come up with some weird theory that makes zero sense because the usage of Theory of Relativity was incorrect in the first place. Clearly, the result of the reasoning is some junk and I am characterizing this person as unintelligent. Also, with this definition, we can conclude that professors are usually more intelligent than their students not because the mental abilities of the students are weaker but because the professors know a lot more.The requirement that the application of the knowledge results in real knowledge? You probably mean results. In that case, define results. What are the results that would render a person intelligent in your mind?
As I said, if you want to discard this requirement, I have no objections. My conclusion would not change at all. I just personally feel that mental abilities is not enough of a requirement for intelligence and I tend to include knowledge in a judgment.
??? I already gave examples: "abstract thinking, logical reasoning, clear analysis, mental cleverness, etc"Mental faculties and its applicability on knowledge? The ability to think in abstracts? Or what?
Holy crap! talk about missing the main point and just blowing over everything just to post a hugh load of bullcrap that has absolutly nothing to do with anything. I think it is pretty apparent you know jack about descartes, otherwise you would have understood what I ment and not gone off on some wild bullshit tangent. You should know better!Yeah, I agree. :wink:
Anyway, you didn't explain how Descartes has anything to do with what you said. And I'm not about to attack you here. That is the kind of stuff that I have tried to avoid because it only leads to stress for people when they argue it all out for no reason and no one gets any where. However, what I was referring to was how you give relationship advice even though you complain about how you can never get relationships to work, how you give "hook up" advice even though you said you were afraid of female genetalia, and how you claim to know everything about how socionics works and everybodies socionic type even though you can't differentiate between an INTP and ENFJ. And you know this too because you make it all better by saying, "Well, people don't have to listen to the advice I give" and so on.
Was Descartes giving you relationship advice as well?
And just so everyone can see how Rocky has a habit of taking things out of context:
Can anyone say oblivious a few times over? The whole context was about kowledge and how I was disagreeing with wym123 saying that seducing women can not actually be knowledge using Descartes. It has absolutly nothing to do with whatever I might do in those situations or whatever bullshit Rocky invents.I disagree ... seducing the opposite sex is knowledge if it is done in a way that uses methods that can not be put to doubt [in other words, methods that work in a general context and can be modeled by almost anyone with the same or similar results]. But, I don't think people who allow their sensations to get the better of them when dealing with the opposite sex are very knowledgeable in the methods of seduction, and usually do not fair to well."intelligence" and "smartness" are exactly the same: "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." I am strictly talking about academic knowledge. Knowing how to seduce the opposite sex is NOT knowledge in my definition.
I also disagree that smartness and intelligence are the same thing necessarily, considering that one may be aquired and the other may be inborn. Everyone has intelligence, but not everyone is smart.
Really ... ? Excuse me for implementing the theories of Descartes, the supposed "father of all modern" philosophy, who had to deal with the inadequacy of direct and indirect realitivism and had to find ways to deal with them and if you took the time to do some actual research you would find that I am pretty much in line with Socrates and Descartes both, if that matters to you. And I suppose if that means I am talking out of my ass, then the last four years I spent studying this stuff means jack and Rocky is the fucking God of knowledge and who knows who he will hit next with his smiting dumbass rod. Maybe I should point out your eisegetical habits of reading your own opinions into ideas where they do not belong and looking like someone who should not be taken seriously. I doubt that is going to stop anytime soon, unless of course you truly see that you are like that and strive to change.
Yeah, I agree.You know jack about Descartes.
Anyway, you didn't explain how Descartes has anything to do with what you said. And I'm not about to attack you here. That is the kind of stuff that I have tried to avoid because it only leads to stress for people when they argue it all out for no reason and no one gets any where. However, what I was referring to was how you give relationship advice even though you complain about how you can never get relationships to work, how you give "hook up" advice even though you said you were afraid of female genetalia, and how you claim to know everything about how socionics works and everybodies socionic type even though you can't differentiate between an INTP and ENFJ. And you know this too because you make it all better by saying, "Well, people don't have to listen to the advice I give" and so on.
Was Descartes giving you relationship advice as well?
Holy crap! talk about missing the main point and just blowing over everything just to post a hugh load of bullcrap that has absolutly nothing to do with anything. I think it is pretty apparent you know jack about descartes, otherwise you would have understood what I ment and not gone off on some wild bullshit tangent. You should know better!
I admitted I knew jack about Descartes. That's why I asked. duh.Holy crap! talk about missing the main point and just blowing over everything just to post a hugh load of bullcrap that has absolutly nothing to do with anything. I think it is pretty apparent you know jack about descartes, otherwise you would have understood what I ment and not gone off on some wild bullshit tangent. You should know better!Yeah, I agree. :wink:
Anyway, you didn't explain how Descartes has anything to do with what you said. And I'm not about to attack you here. That is the kind of stuff that I have tried to avoid because it only leads to stress for people when they argue it all out for no reason and no one gets any where. However, what I was referring to was how you give relationship advice even though you complain about how you can never get relationships to work, how you give "hook up" advice even though you said you were afraid of female genetalia, and how you claim to know everything about how socionics works and everybodies socionic type even though you can't differentiate between an INTP and ENFJ. And you know this too because you make it all better by saying, "Well, people don't have to listen to the advice I give" and so on.
Was Descartes giving you relationship advice as well?
And I also brought up the other stuff to show how this is a behavioral thing and you've done it before. So, if you are being serious, then you'll try and explain something about Descartes and how he relates.
Descartes was a methodical skeptic who believed that only the things that can not be indefinatelly doubted are fact, and that those things must be discovered using objective scientific methods. If something can be doubted in any way, shape, or form, then it is meerly a personal opinion or belief that can not be verified and should not be toted around like it is truth.
Descartes had knowledge of the contradictions of both direct and indirect realism and his theories and methods were intended to be a means of solving those contradictions. Essentially, this means that anything intuited (Ne,Ni) or anything sensed (Se,Si) should not be considered fact unless it is put to the test of judgemental reasoning (Te,Ti, Fe,Fi) and found to be
objectivelly flawless (it is in itself reliable and the results can be repeated). Hence, he was the first philosopher to help find the inductive scientific method as it is used today, and to move away from the more subjective and deductive methods of earlier philosophers that involve questioning and refining methods (socrates, hippocrates, plato, aristotle). Of course, by his time and age Aristotle apparently had the most influence with a theory of direct realism, which is the belief that reality is directly connected with the senses (Se,Si) and that essentially what you see is what you get and that is a proper representation of reality. This caused problems and contradictions on account that the theory did not seem to consider that things are porportionate and that diffrent perceptions can be skewed on account of how thins are being viewed physically. For example, if two people stood in front of an object at diffrent distances the same object would have a diffrent size based on the perspective of the people. Yet, if what both those people sense is really reality, and they are seeing the same object, then those two people should be seeing an object that is the same size; but, it is not the same size. The same object can not also be both 2 inches tall and 4 inches tall, can it?Eventually, a newer theory developed called indirect realism. Indirect Realism was supposedly first implemented by Galileo to solve the problems and contradictions of direct realism. He claimed that what a person physically senses is not naturallydirectly connected to reality (Ne,Ni) and that the real reality is actually an abstraction that can not be directly sensed using a physical means (Se,Si). Descartes was discontented with both of these theories, made his own which has already been described that solved the problems of both, and that was how he came to be considered the "father of modern philosophy." Hence, anything that can not be put to doubt through objective observation and repeated results and for the most part has a near perfect reliability rating it is considered knowledge, and can not be doubted.Now, you might ask how this has to do with "seduction of the opposite sex?" Well, if you have a perfect model of seduction that can not be doubted, and anyone can use it with the same or similar results for most anyone, then it is a fact that the model is a form of "knowledge" and that those who are familiar with the system and can implement will experience the same or similar results to others who are following the model. The problem however with following a system that guarantees a specific result or rate of success is that one must sacrifice his or her own identity in the process of following that model, and is not really being true to self and can fall into an identity crisis in severe cases in the event that they are not being their own natural selves. Hence, results are only limited to how you are in the long-term any how.
Seductive models using objective methods usually suck anyhow ... usually they involve using body language and mannerisms that manipulate girls you hardly know into wanting to fuck you, actually fucking them, getting them emotionally attached, and then forming a relationship with them that by chance might either be really really bad or really really good. Just a little warning there that it can go either way.
Just for clarification, Si doesn't sense things "directly".
And your comment about seduction just sounds silly. You are talking about complicated, individual, himan beings here. Certain models can't predict human bevavior like that, becuase humans are more emotional. Someone might react to something one way one day, but another day act completely different because of other issues going on in their life, or their current mood, for example.
And this is way off topic, but why are you confusing sex with relationships? Which one do you want?
Maybe I am ENTp, cause you just do not seem to get what I am saying!
im not quite sure if the analogy applies. what about this: one is the arm of a person who is suffering from some atrophy in his muscles and the other has strong muscles in his arm. Both arms can lift about 10 pounds. how can it be that the healthy arm cannot be expected to lift 10 pounds if the weak arm can? Wouldnt one think that the arm can at least lift 10 pounds and we wouldnt have a reason to think it could only lift 8 or anything less?I think it is possible. Everyone has arms and legs but some people are terrible at using them and this is quite obvious to the observer.
the analogy, whether its bad or not, that i am stating is meant to ask why is it that if we do link capacity for certain abilities, or PERFORMANCE to functions than why is it that one thinks that having this function as a strength can do anything but help the person performing a task the ability requires? The only instance i can think of is in the case of an introverted task in which extra-internal information is needed that the introvert has not yet experienced.
edit: a little bird told me that the miscommunication occurs when Ti people don't state openly that their thought experiments are blatantly, purposefully exclusive to other real life factors that might affect things. the example is a bad one but i try to compromise with sometimes garish affects. There is no way to say 'i was not saying this' to each one of you so you are selective.
and i agree.
thread is too long, i have forgotten which contributions to bypass.
let's leave it at that and i will talk about this privately with the willing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote