NT types in conversation

[Zeia]

Any NT type can be concrete if they integrate this value and recognize areas where they are not concrete (Because every NT type by default has areas in which he is absolutely NOT concrete).

You know, I would encourage you to be more gender nueatral [sp?] in your statment, there are, in fact, many NT females.

I don't know the exact rule in english, but in french, the "masculine" (Litteral translation from french) gender is neutrally used when both genders are reffered to or when there are no ways of being sure about the subject's gender(s). Gender applies to objects too actually and i accidentally used "he" to refer to the word "type" as it would have been done in french while i should have used "it". It wouldn't have occured if the sentence was correct in the first place though, because a type can't be or not be concrete in the sense that i meant but an individual can. Anyways, who cares?

Yeah? Well, I'm using English, I don't know about you.

This apparently didn't prevent you from misunderstanding the explanation, "Master"mind.

Jesus Christ, REGARDLESS of the language it is gramatically correct to use he in English to encompass people of both genders. Good God, Detail is correct.

[olduser]

He can think himself to the bathroom.

What?

It makes sense to me.

[FDG]

He can think himself to the bathroom.

What?

He can imagine that he's gone to the bathrom without actually going

[olduser]

He can think himself to the bathroom.

What?

He can imagine that he's gone to the bathrom without actually going

Eh, that works too

[MAGNUS]

Much of the discussion about INTp/ENTp here is about the definition of reality. An INTp is likely to view reality as concrete, in a black/white, right/wrong perspective. As if in a particular situation there is a definite right and wrong without the influence of the observer's perspective.

I think of reality as being not what is here or there, in concrete terms, but what is perceived to be there. The difference is that someone who thinks that reality is concrete(definite in terms of this is right and that is wrong) is going to be likely view his opinions/views as being the truth, supporting them with observations and data that he thinks make this view proven to be correct. While someone else knows he is spouting lunacy because he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. But, in fact the real truth is that they both are right, and they both are wrong. What determines this is perspective and data, so that they are both right from their perspective of what they view to be real.

[Phaedrus]

An INTp is likely to view reality as concrete, in a black/white, right/wrong perspective. As if in a particular situation there is a definite right and wrong without the influence of the observer's perspective.

Yes, you are right about this ...

I think of reality as being not what is here or there, in concrete terms, but what is perceived to be there.

... but you are wrong about that. You are not thinking of reality, you are thinking of the word "reality".

The difference is that someone who thinks that reality is concrete(definite in terms of this is right and that is wrong) is going to be likely view his opinions/views as being the truth, supporting them with observations and data that he thinks make this view proven to be correct.

Now you made a true statement again. But maybe you don't realize that everyone (including you) who has any opinion of any kind what so ever views his opinions/views as being true (correct).

While someone else knows he is spouting lunacy because he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.

So, he is spouting lunacy because of ... a truism?

But, in fact the real truth is that they both are right, and they both are wrong.

About what? To talk about "real truth" is to talk about objective reality, and in that sense only the INTp is right as you describe it. But of course you can you use words like "reality" any way you like, even though that doesn't help you one bit if you want to refer to reality.

What determines this is perspective and data, so that they are both right from their perspective of what they view to be real.

To "be right from your own perspective" is nothing but a play with words. If two perspectives contradict each other only one of them can be correct, or right, or true. That is simple logic. To be right has nothing to do with perspectives. The truth can be seen from every perspective that is right (= not wrong, or false). Or one could put it the way Thomas Nagel does when he talks about objective reality as "the view from nowhere".

[detail]

If two perspectives contradict each other only one of them can be correct, or right, or true. That is simple logic.

No, that is a false dilemna. If there are two perspectives, at least one of them is necessarily not the "view from nowhere" so from each perspective's view point, there might be a positive truth value if the view point is considered as a property. Misapplied simple logic.

To be right has nothing to do with perspectives. The truth can be seen from every perspective that is right (= not wrong, or false). Or one could put it the way Thomas Nagel does when he talks about objective reality as "the view from nowhere".

Objective reality and truth are not the same thing, because objective reality refers to the absence of the view point property, while truth is forced to consider it by default in the equation. The problem arises from the expression of truths that comes in a form that is often identical to an objective reality assessment, thus making it seem false because of the domain's interpretation. Whether it's the person who makes the assessment (Of no objective value), the person(Or people) who receives it or both who are convinced of the objective value (Or objective value intention) of the assessment doesn't matter, the error is to consider it's objective value when it shouldn't be considered. Of course the interpretation people have of the assessment doesn't affect the truth value of the assessment itself in it's own circumstances, as it doesn't affect it's objectivity.

[Jonathan]

No, that is a false dilemna. If there are two perspectives, at least one of them is necessarily not the "view from nowhere" so from each perspective's view point, there might be a positive truth value if the view point is considered as a property. Misapplied simple logic.

I guess it depends on what one means by "perspective" and "contradict." If "perspective" means statement, and "contradict" means that one of the statements being true implies that the other is false, then Phaedrus is right.

But "perspective" may mean something much more complex than an individual statement, and in that sense, perspectives may conflict in ways that aren't equivalent to a simple logical contradiction.

Objective reality and truth are not the same thing, because objective reality refers to the absence of the view point property, while truth is forced to consider it by default in the equation. The problem arises from the expression of truths that comes in a form that is often identical to an objective reality assessment, thus making it seem false because of the domain's interpretation. Whether it's the person who makes the assessment (Of no objective value), the person(Or people) who receives it or both who are convinced of the objective value (Or objective value intention) of the assessment doesn't matter, the error is to consider it's objective value when it shouldn't be considered. Of course the interpretation people have of the assessment doesn't affect the truth value of the assessment itself in it's own circumstances, as it doesn't affect it's objectivity.

You have a very interesting thing to say here. Could you take each of your key words and give it a definition (each on its own line, not in paragraph form)? I think that would help a lot of people to understand what seems to be a valuable point.