The solution to all of INTPs problems

[bvanevery]

I do see how my second mention of rationalization in that post could be interpreted as an attack, and I apologize if that's the case. It wasn't meant that way.

I did not interpret it as an attack. I just think you impose your own ego over what other people say about their life experience.

Otherwise, if it's not a hypothetical, surely you can prove it, right?

If you tell me you went to the grocery store last week, I'm not going to gainsay you, expect you to produce a list of witnesses, demand your receipt that you probably already threw away, expect you to regurgitate the contents of your stomach, etc. You are not on trial and going to grocery stores is something people do. You likely couldn't prove to my satisfaction that you've been to the grocery store last week; that has no bearing on the reality of it having occurred. And if you don't want to discuss last week, we could discuss last month, last year, or last decade. Quick, where were you on the night of Oct. 9th, 1996? Can't prove it? Well nah nee nah nee boo boo, must be hypothetical!

I bet there's a formal logical fallacy for your line of reasoning but I don't know the name of it.

Why are you trying to quantify subjective qualia?

To demonstrate irrefutably, on a mathematical basis, that perceptions of our lives are non-binary and indeed cover a vast range of possibilities. Your "if..then" summation of how people may think about their lives is simplistic and doesn't have to fit anyone's life experience.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I did not interpret it as an attack. I just think you impose your own ego over what other people say about their life experience.

If you tell me you went to the grocery store last week, I'm not going to gainsay you, expect you to produce a list of witnesses, demand your receipt that you probably already threw away, expect you to regurgitate the contents of your stomach, etc. You are not on trial and going to grocery stores is something people do. You likely couldn't prove to my satisfaction that you've been to the grocery store last week; that has no bearing on the reality of it having occurred. And if you don't want to discuss last week, we could discuss last month, last year, or last decade. Quick, where were you on the night of Oct. 9th, 1996? Can't prove it? Well nah nee nah nee boo boo, must be hypothetical!

I bet there's a formal logical fallacy for your line of reasoning but I don't know the name of it.

To demonstrate irrefutably, on a mathematical basis, that perceptions of our lives are non-binary and indeed cover a vast range of possibilities. Your "if..then" summation of how people may think about their lives is simplistic and doesn't have to fit anyone's life experience.

If I went to the grocery store, that's something that did happen, vs, say "I would have went to the grocery store Tuesday if I'd have woken up an hour earlier" which is merely an assumption because my intent could have been halted by anything from getting a flat tire to a kangaroo falling from the sky.

Intent and likelihood don't equal action taken. That's not inserting ego or anything else you're asserting, that's simply the reality of the unknown.

One's perception of their life is consistent within an individual because it's assessed against their own standards, hence the use of ego defense mechanisms where those standards aren't met. That can be generalized just fine and it's entirely unquantifiable. It's a heuristic.

 

[bvanevery]

If I went to the grocery store, that's something that did happen, vs, say "I would have went to the grocery store Tuesday if I'd have woken up an hour earlier" which is merely an assumption because my intent could have been halted by anything from getting a flat tire to a kangaroo falling from the sky.

But you are trafficking in the absurd to make this line of 'reasoning' work for you. If I am a creature of habit, and have gone to the grocery store every Tuesday for the past 6 months, for some driving factor such as my personality or a special that only occurs on Tuesdays or when my significant other gets off the tube or whatever... and I say that "I would have went to the grocery store Tuesday if I'd have woken up an hour earlier", then I'm right. You're wrong to gainsay it. You are asserting that past, known behavior can't reliably predict future behavior, and that is false.

You may not want it to be able to predict future behavior. Maintaining this world view may be very important to you. But it isn't to me. My own life experience, what I can predict about myself, is overridingly important to me. I know myself; it is irrelevant that you don't know me. Interesting however, is you don't want to know me, based on what I tell you. Since we haven't met in person and aren't likely to, on what other possible basis could you ever know me? Maybe it is overridingly important to you, that I exist as an internet abstraction only, rather than as a real person with coherent life experience.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

But you are trafficking in the absurd to make this line of 'reasoning' work for you. If I am a creature of habit, and have gone to the grocery store every Tuesday for the past 6 months, for some driving factor such as my personality or a special that only occurs on Tuesdays or when my significant other gets off the tube or whatever... and I say that "I would have went to the grocery store Tuesday if I'd have woken up an hour earlier", then I'm right. You're wrong to gainsay it. You are asserting that past, known behavior can't reliably predict future behavior, and that is false.

You may not want it to be able to predict future behavior. Maintaining this world view may be very important to you. But it isn't to me. My own life experience, what I can predict about myself, is overridingly important to me. I know myself; it is irrelevant that you don't know me. Interesting however, is you don't want to know me, based on what I tell you. Since we haven't met in person and aren't likely to, on what other possible basis could you ever know me? Maybe it is overridingly important to you, that I exist as an internet abstraction only, rather than as a real person with coherent life experience.

No, I'm not. The suite of the unforeseen as a whole makes whatever hypothetical past intent possessed void of meaning.

"I would have" is not the same as "I did." It's not that hard to grasp. Extrapolation can only go so far. You really should know better. This is just fucking hilarious.

"Hear ye! Hear ye! We've finally discovered the man who always follows through with his intent! Every time! Honest!"

You're conflating my use of probability with me judging you. Believe me, I don't particularly care about you one way or the other. You seem to be overly concerned with my perception of you, whereas in reality the only one ITT making assumptions about your past self, is you. I'm playing the odds and interpolating appropriately, and even ignoring extrapolation issues, you're actually pseudo-replicating using yourself as a sample size of 1.

Please kindly re-read my posts and highlight every time I said what you would have done vs what probably would have happened. Hint: The former doesn't exist. If you can't differentiate between the two, you really need to buy yourself a good dictionary and find someone else to help you.

I think I'm probably done responding. This is getting tiresome and seems like a lost cause.