On The Connexion Between the Inutition MBTI dichtomty and Machine Learning Algorihtms

[Ex-User (14663)]

in machine learning theory, reinforcement learning is a process close to how humans learn to behave in the world: you learn from experience, but then you have to exploit that experience to make decisions. You can't afford to only explore because you don't have infinitive time and resources. At the same time, you can't only exploit either; then your knowledge will be overfitted to a small set of data, making your understanding of the world very poor, and you will get bad results from your decisions. A reinforcement algo tries to find the balance between exploring and exploiting. I see what has been categorized as the Ne-Ni dichotomy as just different levels of balance between preferences for exploring and exploiting. INTPs are people who are biased heavily towards exploring – preferably without ever committing to any conviction and never make any actual decisions. INTJs are biased in the opposite direction – they learn some small set of facts and start basing all their thinking and decisions on those.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Is the patterns vs details dichotomy relevant here?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Is the patterns vs details dichotomy relevant here?

in the sense that details pertain more to application of knowledge and patters more to finding new knowledge, maybe

 

[computerhxr]

INTJs are biased in the opposite direction – they learn some small set of facts and start basing all their thinking and decisions on those.

First principles.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

First principles.

Not in my experience

 

[Hadoblado]

I think I pretty much agree - sort of. I've seen explanations of INTP as being more of an exploiter though, which I related to at the time but perhaps not so much anymore. The whole first principles thing but for INTP:


@computerhxr
Not in my experience either. From what I've seen they anchor their perspectives in whatever works for them (like most people), but tone up the influence of that foundation.

 

[computerhxr]

@Serac @Hadoblado

The 16personalities website puts Elon Musk as INTJ.

Well, I do think there’s a good framework for thinking. It is physics. You know, the sort of first principles reasoning. Generally I think there are — what I mean by that is, boil things down to their fundamental truths and reason up from there, as opposed to reasoning by analogy.

Through most of our life, we get through life by reasoning by analogy, which essentially means copying what other people do with slight variations.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay but that's just one guy - and just one read? Maybe first principles is what worked for him... he's also like... the definition of an exception. Basing observations on outliers is not a great place to start any line of reasoning. #geniusplayboybillionairephilanthropist

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

The term "first principles" makes me think of Ti but anyway...

What I do with Jungian typology is generally to just look at what each of the 8 functions mean/what each of the dichotomies mean and just and gain as much insight into things from that ground level.

- As opposed to when people make a multitude of different observations about people and try and place that into the type framework.

(hope that made sense)

Not sure if that's generally how Ni does it but that's how I do it as Ni lead.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Around 9:15 in that video, that's what I'm talking about

 

[QuickTwist]

As I understand it Ni is the link to the collective unconscious because it's based in introversion. Intuition is the second strongest determinant to Introversion. What I mean by that is that intuition is closest to introversion between all the other bases to the cognitive functions. Thinking comes in second to intuition, then feeling, then sensing. But IDK if Jung thought he was the most Introverted type or not, but based on his writing in Psychological Types, I feel confident that is the way the base functions work in relation to E and I.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

As I understand it Ni is the link to the collective unconscious because it's based in introversion. Intuition is the second strongest determinant to Introversion. What I mean by that is that intuition is closest to introversion between all the other bases to the cognitive functions. Thinking comes in second to intuition, then feeling, then sensing. But IDK if Jung thought he was the most Introverted type or not, but based on his writing in Psychological Types, I feel confident that is the way the base functions work in relation to E and I.

There's an interesting debate to this, because there's reason to think that both intuition and thinking are similar in nature to introversion, but while Pod'lair puts both introversion and intuition as yin qualities, it says that thinking has a yang quality, so that feeling goes with introversion and intuition, and thinking goes with extroversion and sensing.

I've seen other reason to think that it goes N>T>F>S, for example in terms of the supposed statistics of how rare each dichotomy is, as well as my interpretation of Plato's divided line, but I also see the reason behind Pod'lair's approach where it goes N>F>T>S as you go from most spiritual/tacit to most scientific/concrete.

It may also be that either approach works depending on what aspects of the dichotomies you're putting into view.

 

[computerhxr]

The term "first principles" makes me think of Ti but anyway...

What I do with Jungian typology is generally to just look at what each of the 8 functions mean/what each of the dichotomies mean and just and gain as much insight into things from that ground level.

- As opposed to when people make a multitude of different observations about people and try and place that into the type framework.

(hope that made sense)

Not sure if that's generally how Ni does it but that's how I do it as Ni lead.

That sounds like a first principles, bottom-up approach.

First principle: the fundamental concepts or assumptions on which a theory, system, or method is based.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

That sounds like a first principles, bottom-up approach.

Yeah so I don't know if that's my Ni or Ti or both or what (I'm INFJ).

 

[computerhxr]

That sounds like a first principles, bottom-up approach.

Yeah so I don't know if that's my Ni or Ti or both or what (I'm INFJ).

The way that I think of it is, that Ni is Archetypal and abstract. Whereas, Ti is more of a way to process information, or to reduce the abstraction down to a granular level.

 

[Rebis]

First principles.

Not in my experience

First principles is when you reason from fundamental axioms, everytime. It's a cognitive model that's designed to not remember a multitude of facts/observations. The standard model in particle physics is a good example where you can calculate physical interactions between atoms (with the exception of gravity) based on 32 different variables, instead of remembering 30,000 different equations for rocket propulsion, light emission and whatever have you.

First principles isn't essentially the way an INTJ would learn, they operate like a mastermind in the few subjects they're interested in. They compound knowledge, first principles isn't compounding knowledge in layers, it's abstracting from first principles every single time.
Think of it as a logical framework of understanding: If you understand the essential logic of a system, you can reason from those principles. I see the cognitive model as being a true form of understanding because many people will blurt out facts that aren't based on first principles but rather inherited from others, akin to a record player repeating the same track.

Some examples: "Linux is worse than Microsoft"

Why? "because this guy says so"

No, context people. If you understand both operating systems at a fundamental level, you can reason on what is actually true. Linux is open source based on the GNU library, you can modify cfg files, different desktop environments, powerful terminal commands and create your own distro if you are so inclined which you can't do in windows because it's proprietary software.

"Linux is less secure than windows"

Again, the difference is Open source vs proprietary. It is actually far more secure if you understand how to implement security features. All packages are installed from the GNU Library, compared to people writing random programs to run on windows 10 with viruses. You have to login to get root permission everytime you install an application, as soon as you leave terminal you're logged out so viruses can't execute continuously while you're using your computer. Linux isn't just one OS it's a family of OSs, classified as rolling releases (ARCH, I think Gentu is too), stability (Mint, Ubuntu LTS), Moshka Desktop (Bohdi) and of course, cornerstone debian. You can get OSs like Tails which are security driven, completely keeping all memory inside of RAM so there is no read/write function to SSD/HDD.

Reasoning from first principles is longer because you have to reason every single time, however you understand the topic better and are less prone to illogical statements, like hearing a doctor say "SSRIs are good" and extrapolating that point in a different context. If you understood the function of SSRIs from first principles, the function of serotonin in the body/brain and how serotonin is inhibited from being reuptaked through the body such as the heart and muscles and staying inside the brain, you can understand from principles how that would effect brain chemistry.

I'm pretty sure INTJs reason from analogy, like any other person. INTPs are good disassembling logical fallacies in people's point, so they too would also be able to detect logical principalities.

 

[Rebis]

in machine learning theory, reinforcement learning is a process close to how humans learn to behave in the world: you learn from experience, but then you have to exploit that experience to make decisions. You can't afford to only explore because you don't have infinitive time and resources. At the same time, you can't only exploit either; then your knowledge will be overfitted to a small set of data, making your understanding of the world very poor, and you will get bad results from your decisions. A reinforcement algo tries to find the balance between exploring and exploiting. I see what has been categorized as the Ne-Ni dichotomy as just different levels of balance between preferences for exploring and exploiting. INTPs are people who are biased heavily towards exploring – preferably without ever committing to any conviction and never make any actual decisions. INTJs are biased in the opposite direction – they learn some small set of facts and start basing all their thinking and decisions on those.

The word connexions reminds me of Ludwig Wittgenstein, I first discovered the word when I was reading Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. Is it a common word in stockholm? I know he was austrian but the word would never be used in the UK, or standard english for that matter.

 

[computerhxr]

First principles.

Not in my experience

First principles is when you reason from fundamental axioms, everytime. It's a cognitive model that's designed to not remember a multitude of facts/observations. The standard model in particle physics is a good example where you can calculate physical interactions between atoms (with the exception of gravity) based on 32 different variables, instead of remembering 30,000 different equations for rocket propulsion, light emission and whatever have you.

First principles isn't essentially the way an INTJ would learn, they operate like a mastermind in the few subjects they're interested in. They compound knowledge, first principles isn't compounding knowledge in layers, it's abstracting from first principles every single time.
Think of it as a logical framework of understanding: If you understand the essential logic of a system, you can reason from those principles. I see the cognitive model as being a true form of understanding because many people will blurt out facts that aren't based on first principles but rather inherited from others, akin to a record player repeating the same track.

Well said! Each INTJ would have their own respective set of 'first principles' based on their experience, moving them into higher-order positions when a lower order principle is discovered. It is like having a universal tool to start with, then refining it for specialization as the INTJ moves towards their objective.

 

[Black Rose]

Machine learning build models out of data. What the brain does is construct new models from parts of old models. (creativity is putting together part to make something new)

Ni scans for new ideas as they pass through each other in the subconscious.
You do not need to create the new model, it just arises from the unconscious.

Ni takes all models and scans as they flow past each other.
Areas called associative networks are where this happens. (the flowing past each other)

Ni is a type of machine learning (combining parts from old models).
It arises from certain network configurations. A network that changes itself.
Ni insights change the flow, new pathways then form.

 

[Rebis]

Learning through neural networks is modelled by the brain and that is the connection.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Linux is less secure than windows"

Again, the difference is Open source vs proprietary. It is actually far more secure if you understand how to implement security features. All packages are installed from the GNU Library, compared to people writing random programs to run on windows 10 with viruses. You have to login to get root permission everytime you install an application, as soon as you leave terminal you're logged out so viruses can't execute continuously while you're using your computer. Linux isn't just one OS it's a family of OSs, classified as rolling releases (ARCH, I think Gentu is too), stability (Mint, Ubuntu LTS), Moshka Desktop (Bohdi) and of course, cornerstone debian. You can get OSs like Tails which are security driven, completely keeping all memory inside of RAM so there is no read/write function to SSD/HDD.

but if 99% of all viruses out there were rootkits and linux-oriented viruses, it would be more secure to use windows (obviously it's the exactly opposite which is true, but let's assume for the sake of argument), which would mean that the person who reasoned inside this system would be correct given their axioms yet completely mistaken in the empirical world. So this might even be a case in point

 

[Rebis]

but if 99% of all viruses out there were rootkits and linux-oriented viruses, it would be more secure to use windows (obviously it's the exactly opposite which is true, but let's assume for the sake of argument), which would mean that the person who reasoned inside this system would be correct given their axioms yet completely mistaken in the empirical world. So this might even be a case in point

Bazinga.

 

[scorpiomover]

First principles is when you reason from fundamental axioms, everytime. It's a cognitive model that's designed to not remember a multitude of facts/observations.

Think of it as a logical framework of understanding: If you understand the essential logic of a system, you can reason from those principles. I see the cognitive model as being a true form of understanding because many people will blurt out facts that aren't based on first principles but rather inherited from others, akin to a record player repeating the same track.

We were taught to do maths from first principles.

First principles means reasoning from fundamental axioms, as you explained, which means you have to forget about the last 2500 years of maths and science, and start re-discovering everything from scratch. Not very practical.

However, if you have learned to prove things from first principles in maths, which can be done, as you are always taught the proof in maths, then if you are in an exam and you forget a formula, or a formula doesn't quite apply to an exam question, you can work it out from scratch. So it's useful, but mainly when you don't have a formula or theory.

Reasoning from first principles is longer because you have to reason every single time, however you understand the topic better and are less prone to illogical statements,

You still have to prove things from first principles. So your conclusions are dependent on the quality of your proofs, which is dependent on the level effort you make to ensure that you carefully check everything you write down for errors. Great logicians understand things better. Poor logicians understand things worse.

like hearing a doctor say "SSRIs are good" and extrapolating that point in a different context. If you understood the function of SSRIs from first principles, the function of serotonin in the body/brain and how serotonin is inhibited from being reuptaked through the body such as the heart and muscles and staying inside the brain, you can understand from principles how that would effect brain chemistry.

True. But so little was understood, and is still not understood, about the way serotonin worked in the first place, that SSRIs were notorious for having a hit & miss effect. The other issue was that the reuptake process wasn't really understood completely in terms of its indirect consequences, leading to unpredictable side-effects that differed from subject to subject, but without much being observed as similar with patients with the same side-effects. It was usually a case of being prescribed SSRI after SSRI until the patient found one worked with few side effects.

First principles isn't essentially the way an INTJ would learn, they operate like a mastermind in the few subjects they're interested in. They compound knowledge, first principles isn't compounding knowledge in layers, it's abstracting from first principles every single time.

I'm pretty sure INTJs reason from analogy, like any other person.

INTJs tend to be generalists. They like to be the "go-to guy", the guy a client will go to for ANY problem. To put it another way, INTJs describe their Ni as something that generates an answer to (almost) every question and a solution to (almost) every problem.

An INTJ once gave an example that illustrates the way INTJs think: You want a slushie. It's 2am, and all of the slushy places are closed. What do you do?

An INTJ would say "What techniques do I have for solving the problem?"

1. See what you have available: There's some ice in the freezer and a blender in the kitchen.
2. Think about how things are designed to work: a slushie is essentially finely crushed ice. The blender chops vegetables finely until they reach liquid consistency.
3. Now think about repurposing them to achieve your goal: Now see Put the ice in the blender instead of vegetables, and you can chop up the ice finely, until it's almost crushed. Stop the blender before the slush turns into liquid, and you have a slushie.

INTPs tend to pick a subject they are interested in, and then study it to death. Then when they encounter a situation in that subject, they can pretty much do anything they want with it, as if they were an expert in the subjects they are interested in, but novices on other subjects. It can take quite a while until an INTP has built up mastery on enough subjects that they can pretty much answer how to handle most subjects.

INTPs are good disassembling logical fallacies in people's point, so they too would also be able to detect logical principalities.

Ti tends to be very good at analysing things and seeing their consequences, and their consequences' consequences, and so on. It also works incredibly fast. That makes Ti very good at proving indirect consequences of first principles.

It also means INTPs are good at applying an analogy quite consistently, and thus quite plausibly.

The standard model in particle physics is a good example where you can calculate physical interactions between atoms (with the exception of gravity) based on 32 different variables, instead of remembering 30,000 different equations for rocket propulsion, light emission and whatever have you.

First Principles isn't useful in physics, because that would require doing all 2500 years of physics, which includes millennia of scientific experiments and lots of interpretations (called theories) and interpretations of interpretations.

It's useful when you take some existing laws of physics and use mathematics to unify them, such as Maxwell's unification of the 4 laws of electricity & magnetism which predicted the existence of radio waves, and Dirac's unification of quantum mechanics and special relativity which predicted the possibility of anti-matter.

If you understand both operating systems at a fundamental level, you can reason on what is actually true.

This tends to be a problem, because most Linux programmers don't like to do much programming for Windows.

Linux is open source based on the GNU library, you can modify cfg files, different desktop environments, powerful terminal commands and create your own distro if you are so inclined

Linux was a distro of Unix made by Linus Torvalds. It was horribly difficult to operate using the GUI. You really needed the command line to do most things, which was really powerful in Unix. So you really needed to be a programmer to use Linux. But at the same time, there was extensive documentation on everything. It also came with some built-in lockouts that meant that your worst nightmare was that your user account was corrupted, in which case, you simply made a new user account. It was an OS for programmers to learn on and play with.

which you can't do in windows because it's proprietary software.

Windows was based on DOS which was based on CP/M, which provided a really basic set of instructions for loading programs for the Intel 8080, one of the early CPUs for PCs. Windows added the Windows API, a set of routines to do GUIs and other OS functions, but which again needed to be run from a program. So you could run Windows without being a programmer, but only if a programmer who knew what he was doing, set Windows up for you.

Because of that overly simplistic design, a programmer who knew what he was doing could do a ridiculous amount of things with it, but only by writing a proper program with a lot of error handling. The documentation was also incomplete, and the routines could be glitchy. So it wasn't the sort of OS you could just knock a shell script up in 20 minutes to do a backup. It was an OS where you had to write a proper program that took time, and was really only worth the effort if you were going to then distribute that backup program to a series of business machines for a fair bit of money. For the same reason, it wasn't a great machine to learn how to code on. With Windows, you learned by experience.

So Windows wasn't wasn't an OS for people learning programming. Windows was an OS that was for experienced programmers to develop on, and for clients to use.

Again, the difference is Open source vs proprietary. It is actually far more secure if you understand how to implement security features. All packages are installed from the GNU Library, compared to people writing random programs to run on windows 10 with viruses. You have to login to get root permission everytime you install an application, as soon as you leave terminal you're logged out so viruses can't execute continuously while you're using your computer. Linux isn't just one OS it's a family of OSs, classified as rolling releases (ARCH, I think Gentu is too), stability (Mint, Ubuntu LTS), Moshka Desktop (Bohdi) and of course, cornerstone debian. You can get OSs like Tails which are security driven, completely keeping all memory inside of RAM so there is no read/write function to SSD/HDD.

In Unix systems, there's a lot of built-in security functions with lots of documentation. So it's a great place to start learning about security, and quite easy to set up once you've learned how.

In Windows, the security was that you'd developed the boot routines and programmed the locks yourself, for your clients. Again, Windows was pretty good at what you did, if you'd taken the time to look through all the nooks and crannies to understand its strengths and its flaws, which would be a lot of work for one person, but not that much if you were studying it so you could figure out how to program it for an entire department.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I think the Linux/Windows example is an excellent demonstration of why the "bottom-up" thought process can be a dangerous method of forming conclusions, as Serac pointed out. Knowing a system, and understanding the theory of why or why not an argument regarding said system should be valid, based on your knowledge of its functions and principals, often leads analytical thinkers astray. I struggled with that a bit, myself, when I was younger. Back then, I saw the world in black and white and I had little to no respect for opinions if the contradicted my understanding of the fundamental ways in which the world works. I was a very limited thinker. It took me a long time to realize I was being arrogant, and I wasn't as smart as I thought I was.

Here is something similar that's been turning in the back of my brain for a while...
Has anyone else observed a similar exclusionary reasoning in self-professed logicians, and in scientists as well? Or is it just me?

I feel like the pattern is a very similar one. Pose a logical argument, use it to prove your point. The argument might be completely logically-sound, but the point - no. The reason that the conclusion they draw is not supported by the argument always seems to be, in my experience, that more information was needed.

It goes something like:
If A works as such, and the workings of A validate the existence of B, then B must be true.

I see this in politics. A logical case is made and a conclusion leveled as if it is an "obvious truth". The speaker will often accuse the audience of "ignoring facts" if they disagree. However, often times, this argument lacks the context of the human/emotional element - how human behaviors, reactions, and tendencies present an unknown factor that would have to be included in the argument in order for the conclusion to be valid.
The interpretation of vocabulary can sometimes roughly fall into this category. There just really aren't that many things in the real human world that can be logically reduced....at least, in my opinion...but I'm really no logician. I hate to use Ben Shapiro as an example, because he does have quite a bit of content that I have found to be insightful, but when the internet caught hold of Shapiro, he was coined with a statement he made: "Facts don't care about your feelings."...I will get back to that catchphrase in a minute.

Now...here's where I wanted to talk about my personal experience with an INTJ which, after reading more about the personality type, I think could be fairly fitting. Correct me if I'm wrong! (It's only one INTJ, after all)

This person was a highlight intelligent man. Better educated than me, better credentials. Older. The sort of person who expects to be respected. In discussions, we butted heads.
This INTJ seemed to think that credentials determined a person's "worthiness" to speak. That if someone was from a top university, or educated in a subject that you were not educated in, you should defer to their authority. (He said I was wrong when I said this kind of argument was a fallacy.)
He also seemed to think that if someone used a fallacy within an argument, they discredited themselves a valid source of information. To his belief, if a person could not make their case without using a fallacy, the conclusion they draw can't be true. (We disagreed on that, but he might have been saying this out of frustration. I think I pissed him off.)
The final straw that broke the camel's back was my insistence that someone can make a logical argument, and their argument in and of itself may be sound, but their conclusion could still be false.

Firstly, I'm no logician...I'm not even that well educated, really. So what do I know? I could be entirely wrong about these things. If I am - please, anyone, feel free to school me right here and now!

What I DID take out of this discussion was a feeling of amazement for how different my personality was from this person. Both of us were heavily invested in figuring out the "truth". However, to this person, analyzing the world was an exercise in systems, processes, and rules. Logic is a tool you use to prove your point. The rules are that someone with credentials gets a higher accuracy rating than someone without. Analyzing these things is to be completed in a programmatic, robotic way. Should a fallacy be encountered, return (false); . Only fellow robots may produce accurate outputs.

I knew he was an INTJ, because he referenced this. I'd taken the test a number of years ago and mentioned that I'd gotten "INTP" (at the time I didn't take the test very seriously), to which he point-blank told me "no"....(he was very convincing, I ended up taking the test two more times after that due to my own self-doubt!)

What I learned, lately, about our interaction, is that the main difference between that INTJ and myself...is that I'm a "databaser". I'm constantly collecting information - whether its qualitative or quantitative, to build my understanding. I appreciate Ben Shapiro's commitment to logic, and that catchphrase "Facts don't care about your feelings"...though I would add "But feelings are highly relevant."
That is how I see the world differently from that INTJ. To me, I'm always second guessing what I believe, and I'm slightly neurotic about the possibility that I may mistakenly draw an inaccurate conclusion due to some "missing piece" of data.

From everything I've read, it almost seems like, at the heart of it, the major difference between INTJs and INTPs is confidence.
What do you think? You all know more about the personalities than I do.

 

[Rebis]

I feel like the pattern is a very similar one. Pose a logical argument, use it to prove your point. The argument might be completely logically-sound, but the point - no. The reason that the conclusion they draw is not supported by the argument always seems to be, in my experience, that more information was needed.

It goes something like:
If A works as such, and the workings of A validate the existence of B, then B must be true.

This form of reasoning is the structure of a sylllogism it's a ancient form of logical deduction:

A: Socrates is a man
B: All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is a mortal.

The flaw in this reasoning:
A: My car is empty
B: All Fords are red
Therefore, my car is red.

If you add in 4 terms to a syllogism it fails, or if you transmute the essence of the argument from a generalist "car" to a type "ford", you'll get a categorical error.
Syllogisms are handy if you understand the structure that validates the sentence.

The interpretation of vocabulary can sometimes roughly fall into this category. There just really aren't that many things in the real human world that can be logically reduced....at least, in my opinion...but I'm really no logician. I hate to use Ben Shapiro as an example, because he does have quite a bit of content that I have found to be insightful, but when the internet caught hold of Shapiro, he was coined with a statement he made: "Facts don't care about your feelings."...I will get back to that catchphrase in a minute.

Now...here's where I wanted to talk about my personal experience with an INTJ which, after reading more about the personality type, I think could be fairly fitting. Correct me if I'm wrong! (It's only one INTJ, after all)

This person was a highlight intelligent man. Better educated than me, better credentials. Older. The sort of person who expects to be respected. In discussions, we butted heads.
This INTJ seemed to think that credentials determined a person's "worthiness" to speak. That if someone was from a top university, or educated in a subject that you were not educated in, you should defer to their authority. (He said I was wrong when I said this kind of argument was a fallacy.)
He also seemed to think that if someone used a fallacy within an argument, they discredited themselves a valid source of information. To his belief, if a person could not make their case without using a fallacy, the conclusion they draw can't be true. (We disagreed on that, but he might have been saying this out of frustration. I think I pissed him off.)

I thhink his perspective is valid to a degree, namely on two principles:
1. Knowledge is categorical, Our world is composed of knowledge so a lot of discussions aren't accessibly solely through logical induction, that is one can discuss something if they understand the pretense of the conversation such as language, but that doesn't infer they understand categorical terminology or the abstractive concepts that accompany it.

2. Yes it's fallacious to employ an appeal to authority fallacy, having said that it's consistent to assume in a categorical sense that to operate in the higher echelons of discussion in said subject that one would be formally educated, there is definitely people that dabble in a range of subjects but not commonly beyond the surface level.
He seems to be a man that isn't preponderant which leads him to rely on consistency.

IN terms of him not acknowledging a case that's made with a logical fallacy then maybe it's because a logical fallacy is a contrary position independent of the subject matter, while he himself wants to discuss the subject matter, not the principals of language.

 

[Inexorable Username]

This form of reasoning is the structure of a sylllogism it's a ancient form of logical deduction:

A: Socrates is a man
B: All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is a mortal.

The flaw in this reasoning:
A: My car is empty
B: All Fords are red
Therefore, my car is red.

If you add in 4 terms to a syllogism it fails, or if you transmute the essence of the argument from a generalist "car" to a type "ford", you'll get a categorical error.
Syllogisms are handy if you understand the structure that validates the sentence.

No, it's not a syllogism. I don't think scientists or logicians usually make that mistake as it's a pretty basic one to make (although I could be wrong).
I phrased my example very poorly, I think, but it boils down not to a failure to draw logical connections between categories, but to a failure to understand the complexity of systems.
For example, I could want to conduct a study on the benefits of Vitamin C. So I give my test subjects oranges to eat for a week, and I observe that because my test subjects all had softer skin, Vitamin C must play an important role in skin elasticity.
Essentially, you're failing to appreciate the complexity of the circumstances - the other factors (like better hydration) that could lead to having more supple skin due to consistent orange injection.

I looked it up online. I think this fallacy is "affirming the consequent". Is that correct?

Common Logical Fallacies Committed by Scientists | RealClearScience

The scientific method is the best system we have for discerning reality, but its mortal adherents are not immune from making mistakes. Though scientists do their best to shirk off the flawed modes of...

www.realclearscience.com

Sometimes, this can even go further - something to the effect of "Because Vitamin C is essential for skin elasticity, if you take this supplement, you too will have more elastic skin". This also isn't a logical scientific conclusion because it ignores the fact that biology and nutrition is incredibly complex, and the other qualities possessed by the orange may be necessary in order for the individual to reap the benefits.

In any case - I see this more and more often. Or at least, I feel like I'm seeing it more and more often. Am I alone in that?

1. Knowledge is categorical, Our world is composed of knowledge so a lot of discussions aren't accessibly solely through logical induction, that is one can discuss something if they understand the pretense of the conversation such as language, but that doesn't infer they understand categorical terminology or the abstractive concepts that accompany it.

So...Let's use an example here, because I feel like, in this scenario, the devil is in the details. Let's say that you and I are discussing whether chicken is good for you. We disagree, you cite a source, and that person happens to be an expert in chicken. This INTJ would believe that, if you don't have a chicken expert to cite for the other side of the argument, you must defer to the chicken expert's opinion.
So, to give another example, if an astrophysicist and a mathematician sit down at a dinner table, and they get into a debate about psychology...If the astrophysicist quotes Sigmund Freud and the mathematician's beliefs are based off of something he read by Charles Darwin, then the mathematician must assume that the Sigmund Freud is right, if Sigmund Freud's beliefs contradict that of the beliefs of Charles Darwin.

The reason I use Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin is because both of these people were theorists. Very, very few things in this world (as I think you mentioned), are actually facts. Many are theories. If a mathematician writes down a mathematical proof - well, I wouldn't dare contradict that. However, if a nutritionist has a concept about the paleo diet, well, I would feel like I'm not out of bounds to reference a couple of books I've read about physiology to contradict the nutritionist's theory.

I'm not trying to knock this particular person. Honestly, I think maybe he had personal beef with me. My only point was that, in retrospect, I feel like perhaps this is something of an INTJ tendency. I've read that they prefer order, rules, and organization, and that they are very confident in their beliefs. You would know more than I, on that front.

 

[Rebis]

This form of reasoning is the structure of a sylllogism it's a ancient form of logical deduction:

A: Socrates is a man
B: All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is a mortal.

The flaw in this reasoning:
A: My car is empty
B: All Fords are red
Therefore, my car is red.

If you add in 4 terms to a syllogism it fails, or if you transmute the essence of the argument from a generalist "car" to a type "ford", you'll get a categorical error.
Syllogisms are handy if you understand the structure that validates the sentence.

No, it's not a syllogism. I don't think scientists or logicians usually make that mistake as it's a pretty basic one to make (although I could be wrong).
I phrased my example very poorly, I think, but it boils down not to a failure to draw logical connections between categories, but to a failure to understand the complexity of systems.
For example, I could want to conduct a study on the benefits of Vitamin C. So I give my test subjects oranges to eat for a week, and I observe that because my test subjects all had softer skin, Vitamin C must play an important role in skin elasticity.
Essentially, you're failing to appreciate the complexity of the circumstances - the other factors (like better hydration) that could lead to having more supple skin due to consistent orange injection.

I looked it up online. I think this fallacy is "affirming the consequent". Is that correct?

Common Logical Fallacies Committed by Scientists | RealClearScience

The scientific method is the best system we have for discerning reality, but its mortal adherents are not immune from making mistakes. Though scientists do their best to shirk off the flawed modes of...

www.realclearscience.com

Sometimes, this can even go further - something to the effect of "Because Vitamin C is essential for skin elasticity, if you take this supplement, you too will have more elastic skin". This also isn't a logical scientific conclusion because it ignores the fact that biology and nutrition is incredibly complex, and the other qualities possessed by the orange may be necessary in order for the individual to reap the benefits.

It's an example of affirming the consequent, associating singular cause and effect to a multi-faceted solution. In this context there is no scientific logical conclusion because we don't model for a mulit-faceted, unified approach to much of all nutritional deficits/diseases. I would actually stipulate that people derive that vitamin C will give them good skin because a scientific study done gave a sample of people who, prior to the trial was indeed vitamin C deficient and upon uptaking of Vitamin C this increased their skin elasticity. However, in people's reasoning they will only derive the relationship as a unvaried cause and effect, causing them to interpet the information as "vitamin C increases skin elasticity". Most of the enhancing properties of nutrition are a sole byproduct of nutritional deficits: I assure you, consuming 5,000% Vitamin B will not correspond with a proportional output as energy.

Having said that, it is worth a shot. It is a univaried proposition "Vitamin C increases skin elasticity" So if you can relatively interpret your diet in the past, such as the massive carbohydrate diet you eat which would demand more vitamin C to metabolise, then that could be the issue. If it isn't the issue, move on to another issue. This is falsification or the proces of elimination, people should be going through this to derive an understanding of what helps them achieve their goals.

In the context of the orange which subsumes other components inside of its shell, naturally scientific papers try to atomise complexity so discussing an orange when it is known of its ingredients is not typical. We can't relate a pepper and an orange if we don't further reduce to it to core elements (Vitamin C) can we?

Yeah I mean if the guy is like that I understand, I've bumped into a lot of them, I'm not particularly fond of their rigidity and almost artificial evaluation of others by substituting titles for individual analysis. However that's an interpretative approach vs a quantitative one, I won't expect someone to reason from first principles (which is essentially a wholly interpetative approach in this context, no bias posited) in all cases, one is taxing and can lead to dreary ends while another can keep you from getting into discussions that you don't want. People implement social filters in peculiar ways, this seems to be his.

I think we do this in a natural way: for example, people "suss" out other's competency by priming them with questions that can determine their knowledge base, asking "what music do you like" is really setting an entry-level requirement that they discuss bands which you like prior to you talking to them. "What is quantum physics" is also a good one, it's like a pie that people keep dropping everytime they watch a buzz video on the topic, and then they proceed to pick up the pie after its dropped upon a new piece of information and show it again. This person just doesn't do it covertly, he could do with some subtlety.

 

[Inexorable Username]

@Rebis
I like the perspective I'm learning from you here regarding scientific analysis. Obviously, it's not new information or information I'm not intrinsically aware of, but I feel that adding in these frames of thinking when they were not necessarily in the forefront of my mind are a good way to build healthy neurological associations that can strengthen my thought processes for the future. The same can be said for having someone else analyze and interpret my social interactions...I'm happy I came to this forum. I don't think I've really ever had conversations like this. It's an energetic feeling. Actionable energy. I can use this for the report I need to write tonight.

I had never really thought about that, but that does make sense. In the contexts of conversations, I'm remarkably bad about considering the "other". I have a tendency to get trapped in my own head, with my own thoughts, and I usually analyze what people are saying, not what they are "doing" with what they are saying. It might be a consequence of all of the time I spend alone. Although, it may, too, be a consequence of the fact that when I do have these kinds of conversations with people, I can tend to get overly excited, and I get ahead of myself. If I'm being completely honest with myself, now, in retrospect, perhaps it could also have been a consequence of gender. The INTJ and myself were different genders, and I've noticed that my enthusiasm for certain subjects, while appropriate for conversations with females, is often a poor choice when interacting with males. I've noticed that males are often very monotone in speech, and there's a sense of careful control in the way they interact. Conversely, females seem to often change their volume and pitch to express emphasis, and I've been wondering for a while if this might be interpreted as slightly...hmm...aggressive? By the male gender. Maybe aggressive is the wrong word. Exhausting might be more appropriate! Perhaps I am exhausting. That would explain a lot!

Thanks for giving me a new way to think about this interaction!
Maybe the behavior was less of a consequence of personality types, and more of a consequence of the situation, subject material, and the dynamic between myself and the individual from a gender standpoint. Sometimes, I'm not entirely sure whether I would be classified as an "INTP" anyways. Although the description sounds pretty dead on, most INTPs I talk to are like robots. I've taken the test 3 times at this point though....and I always seem to get the same result. I believe I actually paid for the official one the second time, but it was a while ago, so I might be misremembering. In any case, it's a useful paradigm by which to try to interpret my behavior and identify my flaws, and it lead me to researching Carl Jung. Cool stuff. I love the theory of the unconscious. It ties into a study I read a while back which I think might have been called the Random Number Generator Project.

No need to reply Rebis! I release you of the duty!
Thanks for the the responses!

 

[Marbles]

@Serac Isn't the preference for exploration/exploitation covered by the P/J axis? I agree with your delineation of INT- J and P. However, if an INTJ decides to become an expert on a topic, I believe he would do so with a focus that would leave him with more insight, and closer to an understanding of first principles, than an INTP has. An INTP would spread his resources more thinly over several fields, which would probably facilitate creativity in all these fields (insight in one lending itself to new perspectives and innovation in another).

I think an INTJ would be annoying in a debate on a topic in which he has superficial understanding. His understanding would be based on efficiency. "I do not have the time to learn the basics of nutritional science, so I will defer to an expert. I am pursuing other goals than my health, so I have limited time to waste on this". A mature INTJ would realize that although he doesn't have a deep understanding of nutritional science, the person he is speaking to might, and other experts might disagree with the one the INTJ subscribes to. An immature INTJ would be hellbent on winning a debate, rather than having a conversation, and would resort to the fallacious argument that his expert is all knowing.

Of the two types, I think an INTP would be most strongly attracted to first principles. They are the ultimate discovery. An INTJ wouldn't much care whether his understanding was based on first principles, as long as acting according to it gave favorable results. As a result, "models" of the world which the INTJ cannot test will be weaker than an INTPs, as the INTP bases his model on first principles he has gathered in various, related fields. Obviously, these are rarely actual first principles, but let's say an INTP makes "a higher resolution model" of a topic, because the INTJ tends to stop accumulating understanding once a model works to his satisfaction.

Among all the people in this forum, you and Cognisant give me the strongest INTJ vibes. You are always succinct, you stay on topic, you're never vague and you spend little time on debates that aren't going anywhere. How strong is your P preference?

 

[Inexorable Username]

@Serac

I think an INTJ would be annoying in a debate on a topic in which he has superficial understanding. His understanding would be based on efficiency. "I do not have the time to learn the basics of nutritional science, so I will defer to an expert. I am pursuing other goals than my health, so I have limited time to waste on this". A mature INTJ would realize that although he doesn't have a deep understanding of nutritional science, the person he is speaking to might, and other experts might disagree with the one the INTJ subscribes to. An immature INTJ would be hellbent on winning a debate, rather than having a conversation, and would resort to the fallacious argument that his expert is all knowing.

That was very insightful! It seems fairly accurate with my experience. I did get the sense from the INTJ that, although he realized that his appeal to authority was a fallacy, it was something of a "shortcut". I think in the contexts of the discussion we were having, he had his sights on the end objective, and taking a detour to discuss the validity of a point within that argument was something he wasn't interested in allocating time to.
Definitely a strong sense of wanting to win - but not necessarily in a logical sense...more like, for practical purposes. ie: "You need to see things my way, because I know that I'm right, and if you don't mind, I'd like to just skip the minor details and cut to the chase"

 

[Inexorable Username]

It might be slightly off topic, but does anyone here know an INFJ?
I suppose they're probably not traditionally considered to be thinkers...but I happen to know one, and even though they wouldn't be considered "smart" insofar as academia is concerned, I can't help but feel a rare sort of intellect from this person. They're very intriguing. I muse a lot about them, trying to pick apart their brain and how/why they work the way they do. The best I can say is that this person emanates a deep sense of wisdom, and they appear to have this amazing capacity to demonstrate an almost out-of-body degree of unbiasedness. There's just no ego there. No sense of being corrupted by prestige or prior beliefs.

@Marbles would you say this a personality tendency of the INFJ? Or do you suppose this person is just a weird outlier?

 

[Rebis]

It might be slightly off topic, but does anyone here know an INFJ?
I suppose they're probably not traditionally considered to be thinkers...but I happen to know one, and even though they wouldn't be considered "smart" insofar as academia is concerned, I can't help but feel a rare sort of intellect from this person. They're very intriguing. I muse a lot about them, trying to pick apart their brain and how/why they work the way they do. The best I can say is that this person emanates a deep sense of wisdom, and they appear to have this amazing capacity to demonstrate an almost out-of-body degree of unbiasedness. There's just no ego there. No sense of being corrupted by prestige or prior beliefs.

@Marbles would you say this a personality tendency of the INFJ? Or do you suppose this person is just a weird outlier?

I know an INFJ, lovely girl very intelligent (She learnt japanese practically second hand from watching anime, in comparison I know like 10 words and I've probably watched more than she ever has) but isn't ambitious or anything, she just works in retail. We've spent a lot of nights drinking and talking about ideas for ages, she's a good listener and reciprocator. She also has a spectacular memory though uses it for fun, humour and music.

The only flaw I've recognised is the contrarian aspect, sometimes she's very chill but other times I get the feeling she thinks I'm manipulating her or trying to get into her by showing that I care, it's a hard line to tow sometimes. It's like a weak bipolar state where she thinks she doesn't have friends and typically only talks to the few she's interested in rather than individuals in the group as a whole, and then all of a sudden thinks everybody hates her and "her" friends are actually her boyfriends (my best friend joe), and not her own. I'm ok with it but I can imagine people would take it very personally as they don't understand the personality type.

Both are quite interesting people, though I've known my friend longer. I try and keep a balance between them as I don't see her as an accomplice inherited by him and him an inherented companion by her, they're both interesting individuals.

 

[Rebis]

No need to reply Rebis! I release you of the duty!

Thankyou for the acknowledgement!

 

[Marbles]

@Inexorable Username I think I know one INFJ, but I haven't had his type confirmed. He is an acquaintance, not a close friend, so my analysis will be rough.

The guy is very spiritual, he joined pentecostals about five years back. Before that he got pretty deep into eastern religions and meditation, and used a lot of psychedelica. He is definitely academically gifted; proficient on the piano, aced his molecular biology degree, and he used to be one of the world's rising poker stars.

I get the prophet vibe from him. We have very similar temperament (Im INTx), but I'm dedication to reason, he to spirituality. I am a bit wary of spending too much time with him, because he wouldn't appreciate my complete rejection of the supernatural, and he has had ugly fall outs with people who fell short of his spiritual standards, before (at least once this was due to heavy drug use on the other guy's part, so I have some sympathy).

Does he have an ego? I don't know, but I suspect prophets often have enormous egos hiding beneath their humility. Also, I doubt you can excel in as many fields as he has without some ego.

He's a very interesting guy. He's seemed interested in more contact, but I am apprehensive. If I learn more, I'll get back to you

So I know one maybe-INFJ. This is my impression of him, but I won't presume to give an analysis of INFJs in general. A word of advice, though, in case you aren't already deep into MBTI; think of the 4 letters as axes, not dichotomies (you are not either J or P, you are somewhere on a continuum), and disregard cognitive functions. Slam a neuroticism axis into the model, as well, and it will be more complete. Also, keep in mind that each of these axes can be divided into sub-axes. It is possible to be extroverted in some ways, and introverted in others, for instance. Some of this might be obvious, but I figure it is better to over explain than under explain.

 

[scorpiomover]

Here is something similar that's been turning in the back of my brain for a while...
Has anyone else observed a similar exclusionary reasoning in self-professed logicians, and in scientists as well? Or is it just me?

I see this in politics.

A lot of the time, people argue for hidden agendas.

Nietzsche also pointed out that most philosophers conveniently were arguing for choices that supported lifestyles they either lived by, or things that would have made their life a lot nicer.

From everything I've read, it almost seems like, at the heart of it, the major difference between INTJs and INTPs is confidence.
What do you think? You all know more about the personalities than I do.

Not exactly.
INTJs tend to think strategically. E.G. an INTJ once explained that he wanted a slushie at 2am. But all the slushie places were closed. He looked around for things he could use, then noticed that he had ice in the freezer, which could be crushed into ice. He also noticed that he had a blender that chops veggies until they are in liquid form. He thus realised that if he put the ice in the blender, he could get the blender to chop the ice until it was fine enough to be slush.

Ni kind of stores a library of tactics in Se, e.g.

1. "look around for things to use", and
2. "if something that isn't meant to go in something, then the something that does stuff will do the same thing to the something that isn't meant to go in it, as it does to the things that are meant to go in it."

Then it pulls them out, tries them out with Te (bu trying them out IRL, either to do them or tell them to others and see if others have objections, and then see if the INTJ can find ways to overcome those objections that others will not be able to counter). Then if they seem usable, the INTJ uses them.

It's a very quick approach. But it relies on optimising for the precise details in a single situation. Even a slightly different situation, even the same situation at a later time, won't have the exact same details, and so the INTJ's approach often fails for other situations and often fails with the same situation later on. Great for fixing problems that occur on the fly.

INTPs prefer to think everything out in their head before trying. Then when the INTP does try it, he wants to try every option. Then he wants to develop a general-purpose solution that works for all similar situations. This is a very slow approach. But it's great for developing a general-purpose solution for a whole class of similar problems, and so is fantastic for R&D for mass-production.

 

[computerhxr]

I think an INTJ would be annoying in a debate on a topic in which he has superficial understanding. His understanding would be based on efficiency. "I do not have the time to learn the basics of nutritional science, so I will defer to an expert. I am pursuing other goals than my health, so I have limited time to waste on this". A mature INTJ would realize that although he doesn't have a deep understanding of nutritional science, the person he is speaking to might, and other experts might disagree with the one the INTJ subscribes to. An immature INTJ would be hellbent on winning a debate, rather than having a conversation, and would resort to the fallacious argument that his expert is all knowing.

Experts oftentimes have a knowledge bias that blinds them from the truth. Even if you choose an arbitrary conclusion, it can be used to extract salient details from the knowledge-holder. They do all of the work and provide a concise study guide, therefore accelerating the learning process. Synthesizing the truth by comparing them against first principles.