• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

The elusive ENTJ.

Local time
Today, 18:22
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
If by that, you mean that many people prefer beautiful lies to ugly truth, then I agree. But I don't have to follow their example.

Equally, you are entirely correct to point out, that it is unwise to assume that just because one embraces logic and reason even in the face of realities that one feels uncomfortable about, that everyone would. To not accept that some people will choose comforting lies over uncomforting truth, would be denying logic and reason, and would thus be accepting comfortable lies over unpleasant truth.

If people require to see falsehood to accept a truth, then their reason for accepting that truth is not that it is truth, i.e. not why it is true, but for another reason. Then what they accept is that which is implied by that reason, and since that is not because it is true, but, say, because it is comforting to them, then they continue to accept that which is implied by that comfort which is not true, and they continue to reject that which is implied by that which is true, but which is incompatible with that sense of comfort. Thus, what appears to be quicksand, is a house with only half the foundations. The other half collapses, and keeps collapsing, no matter how many times one builds on the areas without foundation.

That is why so many people disagree with the argument of "the ends justify the means". Invariably, the imagined justified ends, never occur, and what occurs is even more unjustified than the unjustified means.

I went to university. I talked to people about it there, and people who'd been to uni 5 years earlier, 10 years earlier, 20 years earlier. In uni, students praised it highly. 5 years on, they said that some of it was not worth it. 10 years on, half. By 20 years on, people don't understand why they were taught 90% of what they were taught, as 90% of it was worth almost no value to their lives, and what they found was extremely important, they were never taught.

Is it rational to consider something quicksand, if you can't read it? I have read the Old Testament in the English, and in the original text. They read so differently, they should be classed as entirely different books.

Yeah I meant that people in general don't seem to care much about truth. I say seem because its whether they truly do not care depends on the degree to which they are aware of their own ignorance.

If people believe a falsehood to be truth then their very reason for believing that falsehood can still be the truth they percieve in it, hence they may still very much about truth.

My example wasn't so much about universities, I was just trying to illustrate an example of how history can show us that modern thought originates from bogus.

Another example of good falsehoods which while falsehoods were still a step on the way would be pre socratian philosophy, a foundation, both in the litteral and metaphorical sense.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 18:22
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
Yeah I meant that people in general don't seem to care much about truth.
True. But then, are we any different? We strive for logical consistency, not necessarily truth. The survival instinct, which drives us to thrive as well as survive, is much stronger than the desire to have an accurate picture of reality.

I say seem because its whether they truly do not care depends on the degree to which they are aware of their own ignorance.
It's much harder to get away with not caring, if everyone knows you know about it, because then you can come across like a callous a-hole.

If people believe a falsehood to be truth then their very reason for believing that falsehood can still be the truth they percieve in it, hence they may still very much about truth.
It's true that many people desire sex. But is that a reason to suppose that all women fancy you, and if one doesn't, then she's a lesbian? The desire to have sex can be a reason to believe that, because if one believes that everyone fancys you, then you'll have a lot more confidence to approach a lot more women, and then you'll ask a lot more women out, and statistically, a lot more women will agree to a date, and consequently, statistically, a lot more women will have sex with you. But that doesn't make true either. That line of reasoning just helps the reproductive instinct to do its job, which is what that reasoning is there for.

My example wasn't so much about universities, I was just trying to illustrate an example of how history can show us that modern thought originates from bogus.
It does. Take Iraq. The first gulf war was because Iraq invaded Kuwait, which contains huge reserves of oil, and that set the tone for the second gulf war as well. But many people would rather believe that we would invade a country to get rid of dangerous WMDs or to get rid of a vicious dictator, because in their minds, that would be a reason for a just war, while invading a country to control that country's oil, implies that one is attacking them for selfish reasons, and those people's moral values include that it's wrong to attack a country for selfish reasons.

Too often, what is called "modern thought" is historical revisionism, altering the perceptions of the past, to justify our actions in the present.

Another example of good falsehoods which while falsehoods were still a step on the way would be pre socratian philosophy, a foundation, both in the litteral and metaphorical sense.
I looked up Pre-Socratic philosophy. Standford's Encyclopaedia of Philosophy points out that included in the Pre-Socratic philosophers, were Pythagoras, who we believe gave us Pythagoras' Theorem, from which trigonometry is derived, and forms the starting point for non-linear algebra and polynomials, which led us to complex numbers, and examples of the uses of calculus. Zeno was also a Pre-Socratic philosopher, from which we get his many paradoxes. Quoting Standford's summary:
The range of Presocratic thought shows that the first philosophers were not merely physicists (although they were certainly that). Their interests extended to religious and ethical thought, the nature of understanding, mathematics, meteorology, the nature of explanation, and the roles of mechanism, matter, form, and structure in the world. Almost all the Presocratics seemed to have something to say about embryology, and fragments of Diogenes and Empedocles show a keen interest in the structures of the body; the overlap between ancient philosophy and ancient medicine is of growing interest to scholars of early Greek thought (Longrigg 1963, van der Eijk 2008). Recent discoveries, such as the Derveni Papyrus (Betegh 2004, Kouremenos et al. 2006, Janko 2001, Laks and Most 1997), show that interest in and knowledge of the early philosophers was not necessarily limited to a small audience of rationalistic intellectuals. They passed on many of what later became the basic concerns of philosophy to Plato and Aristotle, and ultimately to the whole tradition of Western philosophical thought.
 
Local time
Today, 18:22
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
True. But then, are we any different? We strive for logical consistency, not necessarily truth. The survival instinct, which drives us to thrive as well as survive, is much stronger than the desire to have an accurate picture of reality.

It's much harder to get away with not caring, if everyone knows you know about it, because then you can come across like a callous a-hole.

It's true that many people desire sex. But is that a reason to suppose that all women fancy you, and if one doesn't, then she's a lesbian? The desire to have sex can be a reason to believe that, because if one believes that everyone fancys you, then you'll have a lot more confidence to approach a lot more women, and then you'll ask a lot more women out, and statistically, a lot more women will agree to a date, and consequently, statistically, a lot more women will have sex with you. But that doesn't make true either. That line of reasoning just helps the reproductive instinct to do its job, which is what that reasoning is there for.

It does. Take Iraq. The first gulf war was because Iraq invaded Kuwait, which contains huge reserves of oil, and that set the tone for the second gulf war as well. But many people would rather believe that we would invade a country to get rid of dangerous WMDs or to get rid of a vicious dictator, because in their minds, that would be a reason for a just war, while invading a country to control that country's oil, implies that one is attacking them for selfish reasons, and those people's moral values include that it's wrong to attack a country for selfish reasons.

Too often, what is called "modern thought" is historical revisionism, altering the perceptions of the past, to justify our actions in the present.

I looked up Pre-Socratic philosophy. Standford's Encyclopaedia of Philosophy points out that included in the Pre-Socratic philosophers, were Pythagoras, who we believe gave us Pythagoras' Theorem, from which trigonometry is derived, and forms the starting point for non-linear algebra and polynomials, which led us to complex numbers, and examples of the uses of calculus. Zeno was also a Pre-Socratic philosopher, from which we get his many paradoxes. Quoting Standford's summary:
Both logic and survival instinct are tools in the service of self replicating genes though. As are our drives.

Your insight into humanity seems to be lacking or you haven't watched a political debate like ever, people in general really do NOT care about logic if they feel strongly enough about something. We go nuts over aborted fetuses without fully developed nervous systems, which can hardly think or feel at all, all the while having no issues with slaughtering animals for food simply because we are biologically programmed to care about our own species. We feel awful when we see pictures of aborted fetuses not because the fetuses have suffered terribly but because we are programmed to.

Now put people and in groups and the bigger they get the more they will be inclined to act on instinct and feeling. It's much easier to get away with not caring about logic, so long as the topic is one which people have strong feelings about, ie politics, morals, philosophy, abortion. Try telling a pro lifer that they don't make sense.

Now about lesbians, I think you missunderstood me, I basically meant that people experience falsehood as truth all the time, regardless of how false or illogical. In your example the man may very well invent reasons and delude himself to the point of genuinely thinking girls who diss him are lesbians. In fact this isn't uncommon among young men who cant seem to score, twisted logic in the service of feelings.

Now about Iraq, I don't get what it has to do with anything, but its another good example of logic in the service of feelings: "Oh we don't have any good reasons to invade this country? Fuck it lets invent some that make sense, the general population will agree anyway because no one wants their own country to be the scum"

This has nothing to do with modern thought at all though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity)

About pre socratic philosophy: You're fighting a strawman. I never said that all pre socratic thought is bogus and dated. There are a plethora of pre socratic philosophers and mathematicians, two examples which disprove a statement I never made says nothing.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 18:22
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
Your insight into humanity seems to be lacking or you haven't watched a political debate like ever, people in general really do NOT care about logic if they feel strongly enough about something.
When I was watching Question Time, a public debate programme on current political issues, during the first few years of the Credit Crunch, everyone pointed out different reasons why different things should not be cut. They all also said that they were in fields or involved with cut that would directly affect them. There were also several journalists who talked to several people each time. Every time, they all said that certain areas should not be cut, and those areas were clearly areas that affected them. Then they were asked what should be cut instead. They all said they didn't know.

All these people, were very sure that the areas that affected them should not be cut, and put up very rational arguments to support their point. Yet they couldn't even have a guess as to what might be cut?

People can think. They think all the time. But they can't think about what they don't know about. They also would struggle to think about the things they think about rarely, because they aren't used to thinking about those things, and the mind improves skill on something, with practice. Thus, everyone is good at subjective logic, the things that they know about very well, and the things that they are very familiar with, and the things that are important to them, and is often on their minds. But then, because they have important desires on those issues, the logic they voice is often only about what will support those things they want.

The other stuff, is just not thought about much by them. So the mind lacks the skill that comes with practice on those topics. So on the stuff that doesn't have a strong motive to think about on a regular basis, you get all sorts of nonsense.

We go nuts over aborted fetuses without fully developed nervous systems, which can hardly think or feel at all, all the while having no issues with slaughtering animals for food simply because we are biologically programmed to care about our own species. We feel awful when we see pictures of aborted fetuses not because the fetuses have suffered terribly but because we are programmed to.
I Ideally, we'd all be rational. But as I explained, the ability of the mind to improve specific skills and understanding by practicing those areas, shows that the mind strengthens its abilities by practicising in a certain area. So if we watch lots of news reports about fights between Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers, that's what our minds get used to, and then we start to see everything that way. If we don't watch any news reports about the dangers of over-consumption of animals, then we don't think about it, unless we specifically make the effort to.

Our minds are wonderful tools. They will show us many wonderful things, but only about the things we program them to think about, which our subconscious judges, by what we choose to spend our time reading about, watching, and thinking about. If we aren't careful to be selective over what to concern ourselves with, according to their priority in our lives, then we let our minds be programmed, instead of programming them ourselves. If we aren't careful to be selective over what to concern ourselves with, according to their priority in our lives, then we program our minds to have the appropriate balance of knowledge on each topic, according to its priority in our lives, and then our minds give us answers accordingly.

The rest, I'd like to dispense with, because I think this is getting way off-topic. I mentioned the last 2, to demonstrate to you that I have paid attention to what people say and do, closely, and it took me a long time and a lot of personal observations before I was sure that people are usually being rational. They just aren't being rational according to YOUR reasons, values, and opinions. They are being rational according to THEIR reasons, values and opinions, and THEIR reasons, values and opinions, produce very different conclusions to your own.

To be honest, if you did think they were objectively rational, then they would be producing conclusions that would be valid for you, but not for them, because your conclusions wouldn't come from their reasons, values and opinions, and so then they would not be rational for themselves.

--------------------- Now on to Dawkins' type:

All this suggests to me, that you agree with Richard Dawkins, and find him to be highly logical, in that his arguments appeal to your logic, and on that basis, you assumed that he must be an INTP.

But INTPs aren't always right. We are often wrong. Also, other types sometimes make logical arguments, and some of each type make lots of logical arguments. So that isn't a reason to say that he is an INTP, or that he can't be other types. What discerns INTPs from INFJs, is that the style that a male INTP uses, the form of his arguments, not their content, are unlike the form of argument of male INFJs. It's not the content of his arguments that allows discernment of one's type, not whether or one is right or wrong, but the style, their form, their layout.

Jung showed this. Jung divided up humanity into 8 types. For each type, there was a description of what happens when their dominant function goes to an extreme. For larger groupings, he also provided more general groupings of psychological disorders. Jung wrote that hysteria was the most common neurosis of extroverts, and psychsychasthenia, a psychological disorder characterized by phobias, obsessions, compulsions, or excessive anxiety, as the most common disorder of introverts.

He doesn't seem to suggest that any type or group of types is immune. He's not saying which is better. He's just saying that different types of people develop different types of disorders, due to their natural preferences of reasoning and decision-making. Anyone can be crazy. But it's the type of crazy you have, the form of your unreality, that is determined by your type.

So, the first question is, do you agree with that?

Second, if so, then what are the forms of arguments of male INTPs, and the forms of arguments of male INFJs, and what are the differences between them?

Third, what are the forms of arguments of Richard Dawkins? How does he lay an argument out?
 
Local time
Today, 18:22
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
It feels like were basically in agreement but using different words and explanations. I just want to distinguish between people being rational and people experiencing themselves as rational. I think the latter holds true for a majority but not the former.

Also Its very much the form of Dawkins arguments, how he presents them and what they are like that I have used to argue that he is an intp. I am no great fan of the man but admittedly I like his style. I don't see how that would make me want him to be intp seeing as I'm an infj.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 18:22
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
It feels like were basically in agreement but using different words and explanations.
I'm inclined to believe that is what happens with almost all arguments. I'm glad that in this case, we can see our points of agreement. Makes it easier to get on, and to discuss.

I just want to distinguish between people being rational and people experiencing themselves as rational. I think the latter holds true for a majority but not the former.
I agree, in that most people see themselves as being objectively rational, and that doesn't mean they are rational, and whether they are or not, other people often don't see them as being obectively rational.

Also Its very much the form of Dawkins arguments, how he presents them and what they are like that I have used to argue that he is an intp. I am no great fan of the man but admittedly I like his style. I don't see how that would make me want him to be intp seeing as I'm an infj.
Well, the reason that I raised it, is why I think he's an INFJ. I can see plenty of INTPs online who share his views on religions, on atheism, on science, and on many things. Plus, many rationals hold by his selfish gene theory.

However, what confused me, was that his style of behaviour and writing wasn't like most INTPs. When atheist INTPs talk about religions, they're usually extremely dismissive, like it's so obvious to them, that they see no point in even discussing the point. When Richard Dawkins talks about religions, he is far more engaging and far more interesting to listen to. He usually makes some extreme generalisations about religions. But he usually provides a small and concise reasoning for them, rather like INTJs do. However, unlike INTJs, he does seem to consider much about how people feel about religions, and especially raises issues about harming others, which suggests Fe to me, rather than Te.

Also, when I started reading his "Selfish Gene" book, I was quite astonished. I had already got the gist of his theory. But I was trying to understand more about how he came to his ideas. In the introduction, he is very revealing. He starts by explaining that he started with an idea that everything in the universe tends towards one central principle, and that is to aim for more stability. I'd agree with that conclusion, because I came to that intuition myself. Dawkins is writing a science book. Plus, it's a theory of everything, and so is an extraordinary claim, and requires substantial proof. But he just glosses over it as if it was a given for him. Then he goes on to talk about viewing genes "as if" they were selfish, on the basis that someone else had done so with photons. Again, intuitively I can see the connection. But just because it might make sense to use the perspective to describe the behaviour of photons, because of the peculiary way photons behave, doesn't mean that it would make sense to use that perspective anywhere else, unless they also have those same peculiarities. But those peculiarities are the results of quantum physics, which aren't assumed to apply to other areas like genes. Dawkins again doesn't really focus on providing reasoning for that, only the description of the intuition. When he ends the introduction, he does something very unscientific. He explains that he's just offering a possible perspective on how one can look at the behaviour of species. For him, it's an exploration of an idea. He's not trying to prove it with intense rational reasoning,

He does introduce rational arguments, such as when he gives reasoning for using individual selection for his theory, which implies selfishness. But he doesn't so much provide arguments to support individual selection, but rather reasons to reject group selection, and thus to accept individual selection by default. It's as if he is using reason to deal with other people's objectives, extrovertedly, rather than to make introverted arguments to support his views.

He also is cited as saying that he just wants people to think for themselves, which sounds like an INTP. But then he goes on about raising children with religions, as being akin to child abuse. It gives me the impression that he likes the idea of people thinking for themselves, but only when their thoughts are one of the thoughts that he considers acceptable. Rather like Henry Ford saying you can have any colour car you want, as long as it's black. It's not anywhere near as open as an INTP who is unsure. It's not anywhere near as closed and rigid as an INTP who has come to a certain decision. But it does have that inbetween-ness of judgement that is in keeping with the way that Ni-doms express themselves, and it supports the right of people to think and feel as they choose, which seems to be something that many INFJs feel strongly. Many INFJs just don't like the idea of categorising people. But at the same time, they have a habit of behaving as if they want to impress their values on others very strongly.

Also, there is his dress sense. It's too good. INTPs often are accused of dressing like hobos. I can dress up pretty well, when I make the effort to. But even so, when I do so, there is something of a formulaic system about it for me, a theme that I follow, that addresses why I am dressing. In other words, I look good, but there is a certain formality about it. Dawkins carries off the natural good looks and dress sense of a Feeler, with no sense of the formalism of when I make the effort.

He has the same easy style with his conversation. But when he debates with religious people, his conversation is definitely more adversarial, and yet rather engaging. It's like he's not a robot, but a human, disagreeing very strongly with another human. One can almost imagine him inviting you to tea, telling you that you're evil, while smiling, and offering you a cupcake.

I can see similar approaches in xNFJs. Not so much ENFJs, because they can be rather bullish, while Dawkins seems to try to persuade others of his views, which suggests to me that he's probably more like an INFJ.

He might be an INTP after all. I don't know everything about MBTI. I can certainly see major differnences between me and most INTPs here, which suggests that I don't understand INTPs as well as I would like.

But it seems to me, that the way he describes his own ideas, and the ways that he talks to others, and generally dresses and presents himself, is a lot closer to Ni-doms, and those with Fe, and INFJs.

That's just my view. But maybe if you can provide reasons why INTPs might do all this, then maybe my view is wrong.

On the other hand, the typical complaint about why he can't be an INFJ, is that Feelers are supposed to be irrational, and uninterested in science.

But a few INFJs said they did extremely well in maths (one said she was in the top 1%), and there are many Feelers who are atheists, and see themselves as rational, and love science.

Also, Antonio Damasio's work has convinced me, that Feelers are just as capable of reasoning and thinking intelligently as any Thinker.

So I don't see why he can't be an INFJ.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow, 02:52
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,157
His assertions of child abuse are consistent with the extreme confidence one gets with mastery of a system. He has exhaustively rejected every other conclusion: teaching children things that are incorrect as gospel is wrong.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 18:22
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
His assertions of child abuse are consistent with the extreme confidence one gets with mastery of a system.
But would YOU say that sort of thing in public?

Also, IIRC, Dawkins has said that he isn't against all religions, and that religions aren't necessarily harmful, just that they are currently so often associated with harm in people's perspectives, which they are. He's not giving a final solution. He maintains that theism is possible, just that he has an intuitive argument that it should be improbable.

An INTP might say something similar in an internet forum post. But I think he'd be a LOT more certain about it. An INTP that concluded that atheism is the correct choice, would be likely to say that theism would be impossible, due to logical contradictions, like many posters have expressed here. An INTP also would not be expressing arguments that appeal to the emotions nearly as much. His Fe would be an unconscious motivator for his arguments. But with an INTP, others would get the impression that he's being ultra-logical. As CherryCola pointed out, people don't usually appreciate long strands of logic when it is coming from others, which is the INTP forte, and that is why we so often feel under-valued, because we are so often not understood.

If Richard Dawkins was like Einstein, then he would have been like Einstein in Einstein's time. He'd have been considered so irrational, that he'd have been refused teaching positions from every university he applied to. He'd have had his theories dismissed, and viewed highly sceptically, by his contemporaries. And then the evidence would have proved that there was no other way to see things. Dawkins has had a lot of people reject his theories, but not so much from his contemporaries. He was never ostracised from the scientific world, because his ideas were never presented as being that radical as the way INTPs perceive reality.

He has exhaustively rejected every other conclusion: teaching children things that are incorrect as gospel is wrong.
Is it really exhaustive rejection of every other conclusion? How many things that have nothing to do with religions/atheism, that kids were taught in school, that were taught to them with as much certainty as if it was infallible gospel, do people realise in their later lives, that they were incorrect? Plenty. Many of them, have real world consequences to the majority, that have far more damaging effects than the effects ascribed to religions, and these things are certainly wrong.

When it comes to religions, their truth, or lack of it, is unproved. There simply isn't that much certainty to either side.

So then why pick on the possible problems that much come from teaching kids about a religion, and not the more certainly harmful and much more harmful effects that come from all those other things that we teach them?

An INTP might think similarly to Dawkins. But it isn't from rejecting every other possibility, and it isn't from a rational judgement of what things are more important to focus on first.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 18:22
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
Ti is very much subjective logic, you can't rule it out based on its conclusions :O
I don't. I rule it out, based on its style of reasoning, compared to Dawkins' style.
 

ENTP lurker

Usually useless
Local time
Today, 18:22
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
228
Location
Pluto, solar system
Dawkins is the Te. One of his books is "The Magic of Reality" which is so much Te that it truly hurts.

Don't mix up Te and Se! Read original Jung or socionics.

He is an ESTJ and he is openly admitting his weak math skills. That is so ESTJ. ENTJ would just learn the math. Maybe I'm an unsually badly disciplined ENTJ... Anyways as they represent Feynman as ENTJ (propably true) everyone else thinks he is an ENTP.

Read his books. He dwelves into details about mysteries and looses the point occasionally. He enlarges known facts with facts without compelling synthesis or new hypothesis. He represents facts as they are and how he experienced through his senses. Ne lurks there but uses rather conventional ways. And he really likes to show concrete evidence.

I wish to see more similar ESTJs.
 
Local time
Today, 18:22
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
Those are weak arguments based on fallacious generalizations. If you think he uses Se in his books you don't know what Se is or you haven't read em'. CB-fucken-A.
 

ENTP lurker

Usually useless
Local time
Today, 18:22
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
228
Location
Pluto, solar system
The way it follows the same pattern. I saw/there is and this is because I found out... oh and ... = Te-Ne.
I have never been so capable person as physical scientist to understand particle physics = Si-Fi. Every (older) ESTJ I know uses this to validate their position and they are fine with it.
Very predictable pattern. (But then again I find most books to be too predictable. )

And one thing is that the details he goes into bunnytrails. Si-Ne.

ENTJ would hammer down the facts and would try to fit them into framework.

If you read a book by Michael S. Gazzaniga. He is clear Ni, Te and Fi very clear NTJ. This how it is going to play out in the end and ethical implications are going to be justified by..
 
Local time
Today, 18:22
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
Whatever. Dawkins is not an ESTJ, your faulty analysis of his writing aside he doesn't act like one in the least. L2fucking type charlatan.
 
Top Bottom