The Great Phaedrus debate

[anndelise]

@ anndelise and others who don't think that I am INTp

Smilingeyes has convincingly proven to all of you in public that I am most likely an INTp, and that I can't be an INTj. But you simply ignore that proof.

If Smilingeyes had convincingly proven to all of us in public (or private) that you are most likely INTp, then we would be convinced. (convincingly proven suggests that some convincing occurred)


Phaedrus once said:

That I am an INTp can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but I seem to fail to convince people of that every time I try.

If it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt,
And if it is based on objective information rather than subjective information as Phaddy claims,
Then it should be relatively easy to convince people.
But telling us how he subjectively feels about something is NOT objective information, nor will it prove anything.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus once said:

That I am an INTp can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but I seem to fail to convince people of that every time I try.

If it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt,
And if it is based on objective information rather than subjective information as Phaddy claims,
Then it should be relatively easy to convince people.

Yes, it should be relatively to convince people. So, why are you not convinced, despite the fact that the arguments for INTp are objectively valid, and Smilingeyes's proof is objectively convincing? When you have done everything that you possibly can to convince people that you are objectively right and they are objectively wrong, and they still don't understand your arguments, what is left to do then? I don't know. Realize that they are lacking in knowledge maybe, and suggest that they do some homework on Socionics theory, which I have suggested people to do. And what if that still doesn't help, and they still refuse to do what I suggest, and if they still won't admit the truth? Well, then there is nothing left to do, I suppose. If you don't see it, you don't see it. I can't force you to see the truth if you are not even willing to open your eyes.

[KSpin]

Merely observing.

[anndelise]

Yes, it should be relatively to convince people. So, why are you not convinced, despite the fact that the arguments for INTp are objectively valid, and Smilingeyes's proof is objectively convincing? When you have done everything that you possibly can to convince people that you are objectively right and they are objectively wrong, and they still don't understand your arguments, what is left to do then? I don't know. Realize that they are lacking in knowledge maybe, and suggest that they do some homework on Socionics theory, which I have suggested people to do. And what if that still doesn't help, and they still refuse to do what I suggest, and if they still won't admit the truth? Well, then there is nothing left to do, I suppose. If you don't see it, you don't see it. I can't force you to see the truth if you are not even willing to open your eyes.

just because YOU were convinced, does not mean that it was "objectively convincing"
just because YOU consider something valid, does not mean that it is "objectively valid"

Unfortunately, to be convinced requires subjective acceptance on the part of the one who's convinced.
To be "valid" does not automatically correlate to "truth"....being a logical person surely you're already aware of that one.

[Kristiina]

Can we split the Phaedrus discussion off of the thread? Maybe into one labeled "Phaedrus type-discussion, take 998" ?

QFT

[Phaedrus]

just because YOU were convinced, does not mean that it was "objectively convincing"
just because YOU consider something valid, does not mean that it is "objectively valid"

Correct, anndelise. And neither does an argument become not objectively valid just because you can't realize that it is valid. Some arguments are objectively valid, and some arguments are not objectively valid. Which is which is not determined by anyone's subjective understanding of them.

Unfortunately, to be convinced requires subjective acceptance on the part of the one who's convinced.

You are right about that too. And if you read what I said above one more time, you will (hopefully) see that that was one of my points. The arguments are objectively valid, and are therefore also objectively convincing, and yet some people are not convinced. That might seem like a contradiction, but it isn't. I hope you understand why. If you don't I can't help you there.

To be "valid" does not automatically correlate to "truth"....being a logical person surely you're already aware of that one.

Yes, you are right again. Even if every conceivable argument suggests that "p" is true, it is still logically possible that "not p" is true. But that is beside the point, of course, since if almost all of the strong arguments suggest that "p" is true, then you should not believe that "not p" is true. That would be completely irrational.

[Logos]

just because YOU were convinced, does not mean that it was "objectively convincing"
just because YOU consider something valid, does not mean that it is "objectively valid"

Correct, anndelise. And neither does an argument become not objectively valid just because you can't realize that it is valid. Some arguments are objectively valid, and some arguments are not objectively valid. Which is which is not determined by anyone's subjective understanding of them.

Then how are you determining whether or not that they are valid? What is the criteria of objectivity? Because it seems that something becomes objective to you only if it matches with your own system. If something contradicts your view that you are an INTp, it is discarded. That seems to be your only criteria. If your argument was actually valid or structurally coherent, then I would expect more people adopting your view that you are an INTp. Instead, I have seen more people become convinced otherwise the more you insist upon your type. The more you struggle, the deeper you sink into the tar. The problem is that you are throwing around the word "objective" too frequently for it to be of any real meaning anymore. It has come to the point that when people see you use the word "objective" in your posts, people read it as Phaedrus trying to convince himself of the validity of his views by throwing out key buzz words which are supposed to alert others of your supposed type. Have you ever considered that you have become too subjectively attached to your supposed type that you have ceased to be objective yourself such that any actual objective observation and analysis of your type is conveniently ignored?

[anndelise]

Summary is the bolded part near the bottom, feel free to skip to it.

And those who are questioning my INTp-ness without having any more ground for it than their subjective impression are just immoral and unscientific.

Unfortunately, to be convinced requires subjective acceptance on the part of the one who's convinced.

You are right about that too.

if to base phaedrus' intp-ness on subjective impressions is to be immoral and unscientific
and to be convinced requires subjective acceptance
then wouldn't it also be immoral and unscientific to be convinced of his intp-ness? (because it's based on a subjective impression)

or is it the case that
to subjectively accept his intp-ness is moral and scientific
but to question his intp-ness based on subjective impressions is immoral and unscientific

basically, subjective impressions are moral and scientific if you accept his intp-ness
but immoral and unscientific if you question his intp-ness
am I right? if not, where did i go wrong

[tcaudilllg]

Another chapter in the endless Phaedrus-INTp debate. People, exertion is the answer!

[Angel von Himmel]

Done, although I think I forgot a post or two ...

[anndelise]

Done, although I think I forgot a post or two ...

thanks mcnew!!

[Logos]

Done, although I think I forgot a post or two ...

Including Phaedrus' latest response to Anndelise.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[implied]

phaedrus, why do you figure SEE is your dual? there has been a lot of talk about why you are/aren't INTp, but i'm curious as to how you see an ESFp as being your dual. i don't think this has been approached much, but there has been so much debate over your type, i apologize if it's been brought up before.

[Angel von Himmel]

Everyone continue to post in this thread and not the other one about phaedrus ... I am going to start kicking people out of the other thread who insist on talking about phaedrus there ...

[Angel von Himmel]

Summary is the bolded part near the bottom, feel free to skip to it.

And those who are questioning my INTp-ness without having any more ground for it than their subjective impression are just immoral and unscientific.

Unfortunately, to be convinced requires subjective acceptance on the part of the one who's convinced.

You are right about that too.

if to base phaedrus' intp-ness on subjective impressions is to be immoral and unscientific
and to be convinced requires subjective acceptance
then wouldn't it also be immoral and unscientific to be convinced of his intp-ness? (because it's based on a subjective impression)

No. Not if your conviction is based on a more solid ground than only your subjective impressions. To base your conviction of my INTp-ness on subjective impressions only is of course wrong and immoral, and that was what I said. You should have better arguments for believing that I am an INTp than that. But you should also have much better arguments than your subjective impressions for believing that I am not an INTp. Since, you don't have that you should not believe that I am not an INTp (which of course is not the same thing as believing that I am an INTp). If you don't have anything better than your subjective impressions to base your belief on, you should not have any belief regarding my type, because that would be immoral and unscientific.

or is it the case that
to subjectively accept his intp-ness is moral and scientific

You should accept it as a very likely hypothesis, and if you also go through all the arguments that has been discussed by me and others in countless of posts, you should accept it as the most likely hypothesis. But you don't have to think that it is impossible that the hypothesis can be false.

but to question his intp-ness based on subjective impressions is immoral and unscientific

Yes, that is definitely immoral and unscientific, for the reasons I just explained.

basically, subjective impressions are moral and scientific if you accept his intp-ness
but immoral and unscientific if you question his intp-ness

No. Subjective impressions are always immoral and unscientific, if they are your only source of information on which you base your belief, especially if those impressions are contradicted by other kinds of evidence, which is the case here. You should not question my INTp-ness on such weak arguments as your subjective impressions. That is immoral and offensive, and most of all it is unscientific. If you are not convinced that I am an INTp, that is okay. But then you should not say it in public -- unless you can show why I am wrong about the things I say about myself. You have to discuss the arguments for INTp, and come up with counter arguments, not just ignore my arguments for INTp. Because that is immoral. It is immoral and offensive to dismiss someone's arguments, which are presented honestly and as the result of many years of hard work, as it suits you.

[Exodus]

Thanks anndelise for a quick summary about Phaedrus's strife with other board members. I have seen these discussions occur on several other topics on the board, and I was also wondering where this all started from, or if there was more information about how this issue began. I expect that the topic will be derailed with discussion about Phadreus's issue, so I will stick around and see if I can read more. Is it safe to ignore Phaedrus's other self-analysis threads and posts on how much he is an I(N)Tp?

I would say that the answer to that depends on whether or not you believe him to be INTp.

I disagree. It doesn't really matter so much whether Phaedrus is INTp (as much as he would like us to believe). It is still a waste of time.

Expat - the reason I thought maybe ISTj instead of INTj is because I'm seeing him as beta>alpha now. I thought INTj because I can feel Ti, but if INTjs get upset at something I say, they either dismiss me and move on, or they consider what I've said and dismiss it and move on, or they consider what I've said and work with it, or some combination. They don't argue to the death. I assume because Se isn't a quadra value? Anyway, I'm sensing some kind of Se action. Maybe it's just a quadra value and it isn't in his ego block.

Tcda. . . whatever his name is spelled - he's more obviously INTj because he's able to consider other possibilities, and he changes his theories to coincide with new possibilities he's entertaining. Phaedrus doesn't do that. He says the same thing over and over again, and gets upset when hearing the same thing over and over again doesn't make us change our minds. That seems more Se-ish.

His thinking that people are immoral for not agreeing with him or for not believing him if he says the same thing over and over again is Fe-ish IMO. To attach an emotional argument to his supposedly logical conclusion makes me think maybe a beta F type instead of a T type.

As for my own reasons for not thinking you are ISTj - you don't seem to have Se in your Ego. You seem more Victim than Aggressor.

Could you elaborate on this? SM's analysis makes a lot of sense, and ISTj would explain the bull-headedness a lot better. Consider that what you perceive as weak Ti might actually be weak Ne.

phaedrus, why do you figure SEE is your dual?

An excellent question.

[Logos]

Thanks anndelise for a quick summary about Phaedrus's strife with other board members. I have seen these discussions occur on several other topics on the board, and I was also wondering where this all started from, or if there was more information about how this issue began. I expect that the topic will be derailed with discussion about Phadreus's issue, so I will stick around and see if I can read more. Is it safe to ignore Phaedrus's other self-analysis threads and posts on how much he is an I(N)Tp?

I would say that the answer to that depends on whether or not you believe him to be INTp.

I disagree. It doesn't really matter so much whether Phaedrus is INTp (as much as he would like us to believe). It is still a waste of time.

I agree that it is mostly a waste of time as Phaedrus refuses to budge on his type. But the real issue at hand is not so much whether or not Phaedrus is an INTp as it is a case of who has the correct understanding of Socionic principles.

phaedrus, why do you figure SEE is your dual?

An excellent question.[/quote]He just objectively knows it alright!

[Phaedrus]

phaedrus, why do you figure SEE is your dual?

An excellent question.

Whatever answer I give to that question you can dismiss it as nothing but my subjective interpretation based on my erroneous subjective impressions. But I have compared my relations with SEEs with most other types, especially ESEs, and my relations with both SEEs and ESEs fit the socionic descriptions of Duality and Conflict perfectly, given the assumption that I am an INTp. My relations with ESEs is exactly as Rick describes that relation on his site (and of course I have compared it with other descriptions as well), and the feeling is mutual. With SEEs it is totally different. With no other type I can be myself so much, and I have always (even before I knew anything about Socionics and didn't know the type of those persons) I have felt a strange kind of sympathy towards them, even complete strangers like Sylvester Stallone. Also, no other type than the SEE can make me do things by just saying it. They are able to give me exactly the kind of support I am looking for. Is what I am talking about here the creation of a deluded mind? Believe what you want.

[Exodus]

phaedrus, why do you figure SEE is your dual?

An excellent question.

Whatever answer I give to that question you can dismiss it as nothing but my subjective interpretation based on my erroneous subjective impressions. But I have compared my relations with SEEs with most other types, especially ESEs, and my relations with both SEEs and ESEs fit the socionic descriptions of Duality and Conflict perfectly, given the assumption that I am an INTp. My relations with ESEs is exactly as Rick describes that relation on his site (and of course I have compared it with other descriptions as well), and the feeling is mutual. With SEEs it is totally different. With no other type I can be myself so much, and I have always (even before I knew anything about Socionics and didn't know the type of those persons) I have felt a strange kind of sympathy towards them, even complete strangers like Sylvester Stallone. Also, no other type than the SEE can make me do things by just saying it. They are able to give me exactly the kind of support I am looking for. Is what I am talking about here the creation of a deluded mind? Believe what you want.

ok, now we're getting somewhere. How does ESFps' Se support you, exactly? And how does Fe bother you?

[Expat]

As for my own reasons for not thinking you are ISTj - you don't seem to have Se in your Ego. You seem more Victim than Aggressor.

Could you elaborate on this? SM's analysis makes a lot of sense, and ISTj would explain the bull-headedness a lot better. Consider that what you perceive as weak Ti might actually be weak Ne.

Well, I think Phaedrus is stubborn, but not really -- tough in a Se-ego fashion, either in his self-descriptions or in his interactions here. A true ISTj does not get into "everyone has decided to hunt me" mode -- an ISTj would coldly mark such people as his enemies for later destruction (if he ever got the chance), ignore them as idiots, or dissect their arguments with his own Ti logic.

[Expat]

But I have compared my relations with SEEs with most other types, especially ESEs, and my relations with both SEEs and ESEs fit the socionic descriptions of Duality and Conflict perfectly, given the assumption that I am an INTp. My relations with ESEs is exactly as Rick describes that relation on his site (and of course I have compared it with other descriptions as well), and the feeling is mutual. With SEEs it is totally different. With no other type I can be myself so much, and I have always (even before I knew anything about Socionics and didn't know the type of those persons) I have felt a strange kind of sympathy towards them, even complete strangers like Sylvester Stallone. Also, no other type than the SEE can make me do things by just saying it. They are able to give me exactly the kind of support I am looking for. Is what I am talking about here the creation of a deluded mind? Believe what you want.

That is a good argument for Ni IP as opposed to Ti IJ, a less good argument for INTp as opposed to INFp.

[FDG]

A true ISTj does not get into "everyone has decided to hunt me" mode -- .

I kind of disagree with this. I know 2 older ISTjs that are really into conspiracy theories and the like. I think the descrption itself says that ISTjs can have a tendency to excessive paranoia. This said, his account of his interactions with ESFps as opposed to ESFjs can mean two things:

- Either he has mistyped ESFps and ESFjs
- Or he is indeed an INTp

[Phaedrus]

But I have compared my relations with SEEs with most other types, especially ESEs, and my relations with both SEEs and ESEs fit the socionic descriptions of Duality and Conflict perfectly, given the assumption that I am an INTp. My relations with ESEs is exactly as Rick describes that relation on his site (and of course I have compared it with other descriptions as well), and the feeling is mutual. With SEEs it is totally different. With no other type I can be myself so much, and I have always (even before I knew anything about Socionics and didn't know the type of those persons) I have felt a strange kind of sympathy towards them, even complete strangers like Sylvester Stallone. Also, no other type than the SEE can make me do things by just saying it. They are able to give me exactly the kind of support I am looking for. Is what I am talking about here the creation of a deluded mind? Believe what you want.

That is a good argument for Ni IP as opposed to Ti IJ, a less good argument for INTp as opposed to INFp.

Correct again. It is not totally impossible to interpret my relations with SEEs and ESEs as fitting the INFp hypothesis, but they sure don't fit any better than the INTp "hypothesis" (which I call an "hypothesis" only to satisfy those who don't believe that I am telling the truth).

[Expat]

I kind of disagree with this. I know 2 older ISTjs that are really into conspiracy theories and the like. I think the descrption itself says that ISTjs can have a tendency to excessive paranoia.

Oh, I agree with that, totally. I just think that they react to it differently.

[CuriousSoul]

The way I see it, Smilingeyes simply said how the constructivist-obstinate combination could explain your behavior. That was all. In one single post (if I recall correctly).

Online typing is always limited by the information available.
Smilingeyes also said that typings are not really his forte.
He also confirmed my INFJ type, and later quickly agreed with ESFJ too.

[Expat]

Thanks for making these points.

To give a bit of background (unfortunately without his comments, apparently), what happened was this (no idea whether the threads have been deleted or not).

Smilingeyes and I had had a bit of a disagreement on the typing of Cato the Censor, the Roman statesman during the Republic, also over PM. I had typed Cato as ISTj, and Smilingeyes, using his "Reinin modelling" and "behavioral tracker" criteria, had typed him as ISTp in concrete Te - that is, a guy at a peak of Construct-creating, Grave, and Obstinate at Te. That is, someone who reached a point of thorough confidence in his own knowledge (in Cato's case, that Carthage was becoming a threat again) that he dismisses any niceties and just hammers the group he sees himself in with what he thinks must be done, not yielding an inch.

As a forum example, he also suggested Rocky was this kind of ISTp at concrete Te, and he (there or elsewhere) also pointed out that the "Ti" that people thought they were seeing in Phaedrus might also be this kind of concrete Te for IP.

As far as I know (speaking under correction), that was the extent of his comments on Phaedrus as Te IP. I have no idea whether he'd still say the same today. It's also worth mentioning that, also in Cato's case, he agreed that ISTj was another valid explanation. So it's a bit of a stretch to say that "Smilingeyes explained perfectly that Phaedrus was INTp".

No, he offered one explanation as to what that supposed "Ti" in Phaedrus really was. And, again, that would imply that Phaedrus would be much closer to ISTp than to INFp, at least where Socionics discussions are concerned (since that's the only area where he'd presumably be at concrete Te), which would negate the idea that he's actually a Ni IP closer to INTp than to INFp.

The main point I'm making is, for those who like to "see everything fit", it's important to be consistent. If Phaedrus would like to grasp at that one comment by Smilingeyes on him as IP at concrete Te, that is, a Te IP, and according to Smilingeyes' own interpretation of temperaments and floating dichotomies (which I don't think he fully understands), then he should concentrate on that and accept that bit of, yes, theory, and non-proven model, overrules all that description talk.

If he wants to focus on his identification with Ni IP profiles, under the assumption that he's actually an intuitive INTp, then it's not logical to just "fish" that comment of Smilingeyes to say that that's the "explanation" of his INTp-ness.

Finally, if Phaedrus wants to take the plunge and fully accept all the implications of Smilingeyes's "flexible type" model, so it would actually matter less if he's an INFp, INTp or ISTp (he could be all of them, or neither, according to the subject, and situation, and period in his life), fine; but that would make a mockery of his claim of being an "empiricist", since we have no more evidence of the empirical validation of Reinin dichotomies or of Smilingeyes's interpretation than we have of the more conventional model A including the Fi>Fe thingy.

The bottom line is -- it is intellectually dishonest to just pick up that one fragment of Smilingeyes's model because it suits you, without understanding the full imlications of doing that.

[Phaedrus]

So it's a bit of a stretch to say that "Smilingeyes explained perfectly that Phaedrus was INTp".

Smilingeyes explained perfectly why I am not an INTj. And that's the main point here. If I said that he explained why I am an INTp, I take that back.

No, he offered one explanation as to what that supposed "Ti" in Phaedrus really was. And, again, that would imply that Phaedrus would be much closer to ISTp than to INFp, at least where Socionics discussions are concerned (since that's the only area where he'd presumably be at concrete Te), which would negate the idea that he's actually a Ni IP closer to INTp than to INFp.

But if Smilingeyes's argument is correct, and the assumption which all of that disussion was based on (that I show this "Ti" in almost every one of my posts) is also correct, then he has in fact -- indirectly -- proven that I am an INTp.

The main point I'm making is, for those who like to "see everything fit", it's important to be consistent. If Phaedrus would like to grasp at that one comment by Smilingeyes on him as IP at concrete Te, that is, a Te IP, and according to Smilingeyes' own interpretation of temperaments and floating dichotomies (which I don't think he fully understands), then he should concentrate on that and accept that bit of, yes, theory, and non-proven model, overrules all that description talk.

Nonsense. That is nothing but bullshit. It does not overrule any description talk -- it is perfectly consistent with it. And at at least two other time in the past Smilingeyes argued for the fact (or at least clearly stated) that I have strong intuition. The only possible type that is compatible with all of Smilingeyes's statements and arguments is INTp.

If he wants to focus on his identification with Ni IP profiles, under the assumption that he's actually an intuitive INTp, then it's not logical to just "fish" that comment of Smilingeyes to say that that's the "explanation" of his INTp-ness.

Of course it is logical. It is perfectly logical, since that was an argument against the INTj claim.

Finally, if Phaedrus wants to take the plunge and fully accept all the implications of Smilingeyes's "flexible type" model, so it would actually matter less if he's an INFp, INTp or ISTp (he could be all of them, or neither, according to the subject, and situation, and period in his life), fine; but that would make a mockery of his claim of being an "empiricist", since we have no more evidence of the empirical validation of Reinin dichotomies or of Smilingeyes's interpretation than we have of the more conventional model A including the Fi>Fe thingy.

The bottom line is -- it is intellectually dishonest to just pick up that one fragment of Smilingeyes's model because it suits you, without understanding the full imlications of doing that.

It is you who don't understand the full implications of all this. If Smilingeyes's is correct, he has disproven all other types but ISTp, INTp, and INFp. Nothing Smilingeyes has said -- ever -- is an argument against INTp. And almost every other argument and piece of evidence supports INTp.

[Expat]

So it's a bit of a stretch to say that "Smilingeyes explained perfectly that Phaedrus was INTp".

Smilingeyes explained perfectly why I am not an INTj. And that's the main point here. If I said that he explained why I am an INTp, I take that back.

My recollection (again, to be corrected if anyone finds that thread, or if Smilingeyes himself shows up) is that he offered the "IP at concrete Te and therefore at a peak of construct-creating, grave and obstinate" as an explanation as to how you would be INTp and not INTj, not as a definitive case against INTj, just like the ISTp case for Cato, where he acknowledged that Cato might still have been ISTj.

I do not remember him ever saying clearly anything like "and that is why Phaedrus isn't INTj", so if he did, then I am the one to take it back.

Your further comments to my post clearly indicate that you did not understand at all what I was getting at -- but I'll drop it. Perhaps others will understand, perhaps not.

[Phaedrus]

My recollection (again, to be corrected if anyone finds that thread, or if Smilingeyes himself shows up) is that he offered the "IP at concrete Te and therefore at a peak of construct-creating, grave and obstinate" as an explanation as to how you would be INTp and not INTj, not as a definitive case against INTj, just like the ISTp case for Cato, where he acknowledged that Cato might still have been ISTj.

Yes, but I haven't seen any good argument for the claim that I am INTj anywhere, and neither has Smilingeyes seen such an argument. There is nothing that suggests that I would be an INTj, and that was the point of Smilingeyes's argument in that post.

[Expat]

Yes, but I haven't seen any good argument for the claim that I am INTj anywhere, and neither has Smilingeyes seen such an argument. There is nothing that suggests that I would be an INTj, and that was the point of Smilingeyes's argument in that post.

Fine -- since I'm not arguing that you are INTj, it's ok. I just wanted to recreate the context of Smilingeyes's comments (once again, to the best of my recollection).

Then how are you determining whether or not that they are valid? What is the criteria of objectivity? Because it seems that something becomes objective to you only if it matches with your own system. If something contradicts your view that you are an INTp, it is discarded. That seems to be your only criteria.

I think a fairer appraisal the folllowing.

Phaedrus rejects as supposedly lacking in "empirical evidence" - both in his case and in XoX's - the model A interpretation that says that, yes by definition, a very clear Fe>Fi preference eliminates INTp as a possible type.

Now, this is the same as saying that model A itself lacks empirical evidence. And that may even be true. It is a whole different, and bigger, discussion, whether that model is really confirmed by empirical evidence.

What I find inconsistent is that he does not apply the same criteria of lack of empirical evidence to Smilingeyes's interpretation of Reinin dichotomies for which there is, if anything, even less evidence than for model A. Unless the fact that that interpretation accepts his INTp-ness is already validation enough for him. Well, I daresay his own type (or my own type) are not, in themselves, validation enough of any model.

[Phaedrus]

Then how are you determining whether or not that they are valid? What is the criteria of objectivity? Because it seems that something becomes objective to you only if it matches with your own system. If something contradicts your view that you are an INTp, it is discarded. That seems to be your only criteria.

I think a fairer appraisal the folllowing.

Phaedrus rejects as supposedly lacking in "empirical evidence" - both in his case and in XoX's - the model A interpretation that says that, yes by definition, a very clear Fe>Fi preference eliminates INTp as a possible type.

Bullshit. That is definitely not a fair appraisal. I don't reject the model A interpretation of the phenomenon, I reject your interpretation of it. That's a big difference, but it is a difference whose existence you don't admit.

Now, this is the same as saying that model A itself lacks empirical evidence.

Bullshit again. You are so totally twisted and trapped in your own interpretation here, that it is embarrassing.

What I find inconsistent is that he does not apply the same criteria of lack of empirical evidence to Smilingeyes's interpretation of Reinin dichotomies for which there is, if anything, even less evidence than for model A. Unless the fact that that interpretation accepts his INTp-ness is already validation enough for him.

I don't know if Smilingeyes's interpretation of the Reinin dichotomies is right or wrong, but that is irrelevent here. That I am an INTp is confirmed by every other piece of evidence, so my INTp-ness is not dependent on its correctness. The point is that Smilingeyes's interpretation does not contradict my INTp-ness, and for those who believe that Smilingeyes's has understood something, he is argument is yet another strong support for INTp.

[FDG]

Phaedrus, let me ask you, why do you think you are a negativist?

[Expat]

Bullshit. That is definitely not a fair appraisal. I don't reject the model A interpretation of the phenomenon, I reject your interpretation of it. That's a big difference, but it is a difference whose existence you don't admit.

Do I have to quote those posts of yours in the XoX thread where it became clear that you had no idea why model A, in its own terms, would say that an INTp can't have Fe>Fi? You weren't disagreeing with it; you were being ignorant of it.

[Phaedrus]

Bullshit. That is definitely not a fair appraisal. I don't reject the model A interpretation of the phenomenon, I reject your interpretation of it. That's a big difference, but it is a difference whose existence you don't admit.

Do I have to quote those posts of yours in the XoX thread where it became clear that you had no idea why model A, in its own terms, would say that an INTp can't have Fe>Fi? You weren't disagreeing with it; you were being ignorant of it.

Even if what you say here would be true (which it isn't), it is totally irrelevant. I am still not rejecting the model A interpretation, and your interpretation is still only YOUR SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the implications of model A for XoX's type in the light of what he has said in his posts. Your ability to think logically is not your greatest talent, Expat.

[anndelise]

anyone else still waiting for Phaedrus to answer Logos' questions?

Then how are you determining whether or not that they are valid? What is the criteria of objectivity?

[Phaedrus]

just because YOU were convinced, does not mean that it was "objectively convincing"
just because YOU consider something valid, does not mean that it is "objectively valid"

Correct, anndelise. And neither does an argument become not objectively valid just because you can't realize that it is valid. Some arguments are objectively valid, and some arguments are not objectively valid. Which is which is not determined by anyone's subjective understanding of them.

Then how are you determining whether or not that they are valid? What is the criteria of objectivity?

In order to be able to explain these things properly, I would probably have to write a whole essay. I don't feel like doing that at the moment, especially since there is no guarantee that I will be understood anyway. So, let's see if you will understand the reasonings of another likely INTp, whose views on this problem are almost identical to my own.

The likely INTp I have in mind is Thomas Nagel, who argues most convincingly for his views on objectivity in his book The Last Word, a book that I have been referring to many times on this forum. It is still a must read for anyone who wants to fully understand what is wrong with being a relativist: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/genera...=9780195108347

Here are some quotes from The Last Word:

I would explain the point of Descartes's cogito this way. It reveals a limit to the kind of self-criticism that begins when one looks at oneself from the outside and considers the ways in which one's convictions might have been produced by causes which fail to justify or validate them. What is revealed in this process of progressively destructive criticism is the unavoidability of reliance on a faculty that generates and understands all the skeptical possibilities. Epistemological skepticism, like selective relativism, is not possible without implicit reliance on the capacity for rational thought: It proceeds by the rational identification of logical possibilities compatible with the evidence, between which reason does not permit us to choose. Thus the skeptic gradually reaches a conception of himself as located in a world whose relation to him he cannot penetrate. But skepticism that is the product of an argument cannot be total. In the cogito the reliance on reason is made explicit, revealing a limit to this type of doubt. The true philosophical point consists not in Descartes' conclusion that he exists (a result much more limited than he subsequently relies on), nor even in the discovery of something absolutely certain. Rather, the point is that Descartes reveals that there are some thoughts which we cannot get outside of. [...]

To get outside of ourselves at all, in the way that permits some judgments to be reclassified as mere appearances, there must be others that we think straight. Eventually this process takes us to a level of reasoning where, while it is possible to think that some of the thoughts might be mistaken, their correction can only be particular, and not a general rejection of this form of thought altogether as an illusion or a set of parochial responses. Insofar as it depends on taking the external view of oneself, the discrediting of universal claims of reason as merely subjective or relative has inescapable built-in limits, since that external view does not itself admit of a still more external view, and so on ad infinitum. [...]

Thought always leads us back to the employment of unconditional reason if we try to challenge it globally, because one can't criticize something with nothing; and one can't criticize the more fundamental with the less fundamental. Logic cannot be displaced by anthropology. Arithmetic cannot be displaced by sociology, or by biology. Neither can ethics, in my view. I believe that once the category of thoughts that we cannot get outside of is recognized, the range of examples turns out to be quite wide.

Having the cultural influences on our arithmetical or moral convictions pointed out to us may lead us to reexamine them, but the examination must proceed by first-order arithmetical or ethical reasoning: It cannot simply leave those domains behind, substituting cultural anthropology instead. That is, we must ask whether the proposed "external" explanations make it reasonable to withdraw our assent from any of these propositions or to qualify it in some way. The same thing is true whether the external standpoint is supposed to persuade us to withdraw a first-order judgment, or to recognize its subjective character (or the subjective character of the whole domain) without changing its content. These are questions within arithmetic or ethics, questions about the arithmetical or ethical relevance of the arguments.

And here is one of Nagel's articles that could perhaps also be of some interest to this and related discussions: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/nagel.html

Here are some quotes from that article (bolds are mine):

So far, none of this implies that scientific reasoning is not objective, or that it cannot yield knowledge of reality. All it means is that a scientific inference from evidence to the truth or falsity of any proposition involves in some degree our whole system of beliefs and experience; and that the method is not logical deduction alone, but a weighing of which elements of the system it is most reasonable to retain and which to abandon when an inconsistency among them appears. In normal inquiry, this is usually easy to determine; but at the cutting edge it is often difficult, and a clear answer may have to await the experimental production of further evidence, or the construction of new theoretical hypotheses.

This means that most of our beliefs at any time must in some degree be regarded as provisional, since they may be replaced when a different balance of reasons is generated by new experience or theoretical ingenuity. It also means that an eternal set of rules of scientific method cannot be laid down in advance. But it does not mean that it cannot be true that a certain theory is the most reasonable to accept given the evidence available at a particular time, and it does not mean that the theory cannot be objectively true, however provisionally we may hold it. Truth is not the same as certainty, or universal acceptance. [...]

Thus quantum theory, via the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, and to a lesser extent relativity, are often invoked to show that today even science has had to abandon the idea of an objective, mind-independent reality. But neither theory has this significance, however strange may be the reality that they describe and its interaction with observers. And this alienation will only increase if, as seems likely, science penetrates to less and less intuitively imaginable accounts of the reality that lies behind the familiar manifest world, accounts which rely more and more on mathematics that only specialists can learn.

[krieger]

Now if only you'd realize that condemning all 'relativism', particularly in inexact science, is an equally grave error...

Each one of your pieces of 'objective evidence' has it's basis in some form of unreliable method of observation: intuition, estimation, self-report, etc. On top of that not all parts of theory they assume to be reliable are necessarily publically considered such. The are not in the absolute sense more relevant than the communal consensus of your type.

(that's not to say I disagree on your self-typing, I just make the assesment on different grounds. The real problem here is that socionics is not as complete and congruent a system as people take it to be. If it was, peoples' wholistic intuitions on your type, and your (semi?-) objective findings would not be in such stark disagreement.)

[Phaedrus]

Each one of your pieces of 'objective evidence' has it's basis in some form of unreliable method of observation: intuition, estimation, self-report, etc. On top of that not all parts of theory they assume to be reliable are necessarily publically considered such. The are not in the absolute sense more relevant than the communal consensus of your type.

That's where you are wrong. The communal consensus of my type is almost completely irrelevant and unreliable -- unless those who try to type me use the most reliable methods we have: comparative analyses of my self-reports, my test results, etc.

It is the same for everyone. Some person(s) impression(s) of you is the least reliable evidence of your type. And that's why we should not base our typing of someone on our subjective impressions of that person. Such impressions should only be seen as indications. If many such impressions point in the same directions, the indication is stronger, especially if they include V.I. and body type considerations.

But the strongest evidence is still what the person himself has to say about his behaviour, his attitudes, what he identifies with, and his results on as many different types of tests as possible. And the biggest mistake people on this forum make is to dismiss test results and self-reports as irrelevant, unimportant, or unreliable. They think that they are in a better position to type a person based on his posts on the Internet, than the person is himself. So they decide to ignore the most reliable evidence there is.

That's exactly what has happened in XoX's case. His test results, his self-reports, his view of himself, his own sense of strong similarity and mutual understanding with another correctly typed INTp, and probably even V.I. -- every one of these pieces of evidence point in the same direction: that XoX is an INTp. And yet people have the nerve to ignore all of that in preference for some subjective interpretation of some subjective impressions of what function(s) they think that they can perceive as manifested in some posts of the person they are typing. Such behaviour is disgustingly unscientific.

[anndelise]

aka "believe what I say, not what I do"