Greta Thunberg

[Retiree]

lol not caring about "facts" is a cultural suicide, of course anyone is going to care about facts.

You don't even need to understand anything in order to know facts, you just have to "trust"! Trust in some authority, such as a scientist, telling you that such a fact is true and accurate. No personal understanding is required.

In fact, over-reliance on "facts" is low-logic, high-trust. I'm sure this is more complex than something that has to do with Te/Fi.

"Scientists" are not just "some personal authority". We all about big data and meta-analyses now; it's as close as you can get to "being objective". Please (I highly recommend you to) read Karl Popper and his theory of "three worlds" (a very important piece on contemporary philosophy of science; if you didn't read it). Yes, in socionics and alike ethical types can be too trusting with "facts"; but it's not like a Te dom wouldn't say that. It's not like a Te dom wouldn't trust science (especially when you have a consensus and so much proof), as (assuming they have received adequate education) they understand what science is (its uses, limitations, so on). High Te just gives you more awareness and meta-awareness, I guess; it's more natural and in much higher doses.

That is, I still think ESI.

[Singu]

"Scientists" are not just "some personal authority". We all about big data and meta-analyses now; it's as close as you can get to "being objective". Please (I highly recommend you to) read Karl Popper and his theory of "three worlds" (a very important piece on contemporary philosophy of science; if you didn't read it).

...You must not have properly read Popper, because that is exactly the opposite of Popperian epistemology.

I didn't say scientists were a "personal" authority, they're considered to be THE authority in our current cultural climate. Of course, science has never been about authority, and most scientists don't claim to have any authority. That's why science is about experiments, reproducibility and checks-and-balances in the form of peer-review (which all means that they don't exactly rely on trusting the authority of some certain scientists).

The point is that people like to rely on authority of any kinds. That is due to our culture.

Yes, in socionics and alike ethical types can be too trusting with "facts"; but it's not like a Te dom wouldn't say that. It's not like a Te dom wouldn't trust science (especially when you have a consensus and so much proof), as (assuming they have received adequate education) they understand what science is (its uses, limitations, so on). High Te just gives you more awareness and meta-awareness, I guess; it's more natural and in much higher doses.

That is, I still think ESI.

Yes, I said that it's neither "F" nor "T". It's about blindly trusting something without having any personal understanding of it.

[Retiree]

...You must not have properly read Popper, because that is exactly the opposite of Popperian epistemology.

I didn't say scientists were a "personal" authority, they're considered to be THE authority in our current cultural climate. Of course, science has never been about authority, and most scientists don't claim to have any authority. That's why science is about experiments, reproducibility and checks-and-balances in the form of peer-review (which all means that they don't exactly rely on trusting the authority of some certain scientists).

The point is that people like to rely on authority of any kinds. That is due to our culture.

I think you did misunderstood me. I do know Popper does consider authority to be just a fallacy, and I do agree with him; and science isn't about authority. But then, I think I misunderstood you - when you were using that "personal authority" thing and I've thought you are somewhat serious.