People have different personalities, therefore Jungian type theory. Sound logic.Originally Posted by Number 9 large
I like Jungian type theories, but this is still the equivalent to a fallacy jumping up on stage and flashing the audience in terms of subtlety.
What's the philosophy of pseudo-science? Are there many kinds as well?
Yes. Read a philosophical book or paper by a famous pseudoscientist such as Noam Chomsky, Rupert Sheldrake, Nazi racial theorists, etc. Astrology, alchemy, and phrenology at least were not pseudoscience before anyone tested them so I wouldn't bother with those unless you're looking for modern people considering them science. HIV/AIDS denialism I also wouldn't bother with since the tests are legit not accessible to even well-informed laypeople and sometimes even I think maybe AIDS causes HIV rather than vice versa (still not going to be careless around AIDS though.)
Yeah well in the end its not proven so its just a theory that u believe or not. But. U ser T and F dichotomy in other areas not just in jungian typology. Like they say most women dont make sense, are emotional etc etc thats them pointing at F type, whereas for men they recide in T. Its not just in jungian typology and im not saying it that way. I just believe it becausr it coincides with reality in general for me.
...That's still Jung's type theory, since Jung is the one who made the T and F types. I think Jung's type theory makes sense but you're still begging the question.
Its an essential part of the theory expressed by sources outside the theory....
That's what a theory is. Gravity is a theory even if things falling seems like common sense.
yeah and thats the difference between Ti and Te with Te always needing evidence, but i think youre just trying to sound intellectual or sth
Well that's not what I said, but you can believe whatever you like.
The point is that there are no fundamental differences in people's ability to be logical and rational. It doesn't matter how emotional or unemotional you are. There are also no limits in being able to be logical and rational, which means that there are also no limits in being illogical and irrational. Which is why you can have otherwise well-educated scientists believing in batshit insane stuff.
The "needing evidence" has more to do with the influence of LOGICAL POSITIVISM and VERIFICATIONISM, which has already been debunked and fallen out of fashion. Of course you can call that "Te", but it's kind of pointless to do so. What's really happening is that there are still Logical Positivists and Verificationists in disguise. And I doubt that people are born with certain belief systems, or that there are certain brain structures that make some people susceptible to those belief systems.
The fact is that evidence "confirms" Newton's theory of gravity. And yet Newton's theory has been proven wrong by Einstein. And it couldn't have ever been proven wrong without Einstein coming up with a better theory than Newton's.
So people's belief in a theory with "evidence" could still be wrong. The "certainty" of "Te types" being always right or even needing to be right and objective has been put into doubt. In fact, the entire criticism of "Te types" by Jung was that these people were relying too much on external "facts", and that they needed to have more balance instead of just lifelessly and mindlessly collecting a bunch of facts. But what Jung himself didn't realize was that he was basically creating a categorization system based on EMPIRICISM and INDUCTIVISM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote