The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

[Tannhauser]

When one reads a profile description of the INTP there is usually no lack of praise of the INTPs intellect and his/her strengths as a "thinker".

Meanwhile I see this one tendency (and I have certainly been guilty of it myself) to have an almost religious faith in one's abilities as a logical thinker. This logic, however, is often extremely flawed and full of subjective judgements and implied assumptions. Often it is impossible to even tell what assumptions the INTP argues with -- this is especially evident when one sees INTPs discuss MBTI theory.

Most importantly, there is a naive faith in one's ability to extrapolate one's reasoning endlessly, with minimal empirical evidence and minimal amount of experience. It is what we might call subjective logic: find some one little piece of data or one small observation, and start running the machinery of extrapolation.

It is very similar to the kind of metaphysical reasoning that Kant critiqued in Critique of Pure Reason, where he showed that

...the human mind is incapable of going beyond experience so as to obtain a knowledge of ultimate reality, because no direct advance can be made from pure ideas to objective existence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason#Synthetic_a_priori_judgments

In some sense it is the opposite of the weakness of the reasoning of an INTJ: the INTJ says "there is some data supporting my claim, therefore it is true". The INTP says "I have derived it logically therefore it is true". But it is important to realise that if you have not reasoned with concrete, well-defined, empirical objects, your derivation is not worth much.

I think the MBTI is correct in one thing: if there is anything to its theory of functions, it is not that one's dominant function is pertaining to what "one is good at", it is more of a mode which one most easily falls into. But if this mode is not subject to any self-discipline or a conscious effort at developing skills pertaining to this mode, it becomes what has been described above.

 

[Hadoblado]

Falling prey to a smaller picture while mistaking it for a complete one. I find myself constantly articulating models as if there were no other factors.

Many people here also tend to consider themselves to think in terms of pure logic when it's just blatantly not true.

There is also the tendency to have difficulty navigating feelings and values, resulting in a lower quality of life.

 

[Yellow]

Disclaimer: Please don't take this as some claim of authority on the subject. These are my own inane ramblings on the topic, which I've touched on in the past, and appear to have solidified slightly for me as I typed.

I don't know how to separate INTPs from the growing group of interneteers who would like to think they are INTP because it seems elite. If they are one and the same, then at their worst, INTPs are grandiose. They display a delusion of intellectual and rational superiority that is truly staggering. Some go so far as to appear to have a mild/moderate Schizotypal Personality Disorder.

The younger/immature ones seem to like to put the world into two categories -- "morons" and "people who agree with me". I think these INTPs' biggest weakness is closed-mindedness. They are closed to what others have to offer. They are too quick to dismiss the conclusions of others, and too obsessed with their own novelty.

There are other INTPs who have not gone down this road. Or at least, the egotism is mitigated by a healthy dose of self-doubt unimpeded by overcompensation.

Maybe that's it!

It's hard for some people to feel like they are different. It feels like someone handed out a social manual, and you never got a copy. It's difficult to be rejected. It's hard to find yourself unable to relate. Projection, compensation, and displacement with a smidgen of rationalization and intellectualization seem to be the bane of many online INTPs. It's easier to soothe yourself by deciding that you're better than others. If you decide that you are somehow superior, that you are somehow more noble, more logical, more intelligent, you can cope with the social disconnection.

What begins as coping, unfortunately, rots away at your world view. It becomes the lens through which you view people and the world.

Our minds like categories and they like things to be simple and streamlined. We have to eliminate the distraction of the expected and focus on the unexpected. Otherwise, our tiny brains would short circuit. That's why we, as our species hurtles toward globalization, struggle so much with archetypes.

INTPs are among the most guilty. Perhaps, without a vigilance against judgmental ruts, the INTP becomes a bigot. Not just in the traditional sense of the word, but against anything they automatically place into the "pleb" category.

Too traditional, too anti-traditional, too liberal, too conservative, too idealistic, too conventional, boring, ordinary, predictable, mainstream, pretty, happy, attention-seeking, accepted, fringe, hip, unhip.

The hyper critical nature that makes INTPs so damn good at analysis often seems to go into overdrive and destroys any chance of open, objective observation. These jammed-up INTPs are utterly incapable of applying proper logic or rational thought to their conclusions, and they are unable to recognize it.

 

[Sinny91]

Falling prey to a smaller picture while mistaking it for a complete one.

This.

But if there's one thing I have learned on the roller coaster of life thus far, it's that some things defy logic.. And you have to be okay with that.

 

[Seteleechete]

In regards to what you call subjective logic http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=22743 subjective reasoning can work very well, though empirical evidence is a better option if available/you can be bothered.

The thing is part of the chain of logic that is sometimes missing is the knowing the limitations and flaws of your reasoning some of which you touch in your post. Also a bit of humbleness is required in acknowledging that you have not thought of everything, that you can be wrong and that your reasoning can have known and unknown flaws. All of this should be applied to your reasoning of course (I have a high faith in my own ability in this regard).

Yellow I have come to agree that it can make us judgemental but I don't see that as a bad thing if the (including bigoted) judgements have merits. I will make a judgement of a person/topic on a glance based on the criteria you have given and often give less thought to groups that I am less interested in. The important thing to do is being able to change your judgement if it is proven incorrect should any prolonged interaction occur.

If I meet a self proclaimed liberalist and a self proclaimed conservative at a bar I am more likely to get along with the liberalist and therefore I will put more effort towards getting to know him, I see this as a good prioritization technique based on judgement. If it then proves that the conservative is a rational and open minded person while the opposite is true for the liberalist I will revise my opinion and focus more on the conservative person(somewhat broad example but I think the point is clear).

Again this judgemental attitude can be a flaw in our thinking but if you recognize it and mitigate the downsides while focusing on the merits it becomes can become something positive.

 

[Hadoblado]

Great post Yellow.

 

[Frankie]

I can relate to extrapolating too much and being somewhat close minded in arguments (often playing the devil's advocate)
I wonder if we are doomed to be this way or is it just a trait of an unhealthy INTP?

 

[Hadoblado]

We're not beyond redemption so long as we are able to keep avenues of growth open. In other words, keep an eye out for the pitfall of having a position that you will not budge on regardless of opposing evidence.

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

We're not beyond redemption so long as we are able to keep avenues of growth open. In other words, keep an eye out for the pitfall of having a position that you will not budge on regardless of opposing evidence.

That seems a little contradictory, considering that is the INTPs ultimate goal- to find the truth, truth that cannot be argued because it is immutable and always valid.

But I understand what you're saying. I think it arises from our desire to be right, but not just to be right, to know what is true and what is not. So we can sometimes insist our point is flawless because it would he hard to accept that what we worked so hard on and questioned so vigorously is wrong.

But the truth is that it's better to accept that you're wrong than to hold on to it, because even uncertainty is better than being certain of an incorrect thesis, because then you can find the real truth rather than building upon a flawed foundation.


So if you've found a theory so strong that it can't be taken down, awesome. But don't assume it is or present it as it is. Be willing to critique it with further input.

I guess advice for us all, but I think we already know this. Another truth- we don't realize when this is the case because we all have rationale why some of our beliefs are unquestionable.

 

[Tannhauser]

In regards to what you call subjective logic http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=22743 subjective reasoning can work very well, though empirical evidence is a better option if available/you can be bothered.

The problem arises when one has unshakable faith in one's reasoning without paying attention to what connection it has to the empirical world.

The domain where an INTP should be careful about his/her reasoning is when the reasoning starts to involve a series of metaphysical and vaguely defined objects. For example you can sometimes see an INTP have some theory of space and time, where they have some idea in their mind of what "time" is. Then, contradicting everything known to modern physics, they start extrapolating a theory based on these subjective concepts. This is where one should stay humble, learn from existing literature, pay attention to empirical evidence and be careful to devise clear definitions of the concepts.

Same goes for theorizing about MBTI theory and human psychology.

 

[Inquisitor]

Same goes for theorizing about MBTI theory and human psychology.

Disagree here. Psychology is one of the few domains where it's very difficult to quantify personality. I know people have done it and gotten some good results (MBTI, Big Five), but there's another aspect to it entirely that simply cannot be subjected to controlled trials, because the only thing those experiments capture are behavior and self-reported answers to questions. Same goes for many alternative systems of medicine that are by nature so holistic that they are basically immune to reductionism. It's precisely in these areas that INTPs shine and they are frequently interested in them too, especially since they generally find the rigid attention to evidence of INTJs and other types to be burdensome and confining.

Einstein would never have discovered what he did if he just bought into the idea that he couldn't discover any new theories unless he performed loads of controlled experiments. That would have handcuffed him. It's precisely his willingness to theorize/ponder without lab experimentation that led him to his insights. Apparently later on he refused to alter his beliefs about physics even when the evidence in favor of quantum mechanics was significant. So that was a problem for him, and I do agree rigidity can be an issue. But think about from his perspective: He spent his life building a theoretical edifice, and then he was faced with the prospect of tearing it all down and abandoning the idea that the universe was not such an orderly place after all. INTPs work hard at constructing their theories, and they get attached to them. Thankfully, for the most part their ideas tend to be accurate but not necessarily complete w/respect to hard data.

I get the point of this thread, but for me the principle at work here is if the best or only way to answer a question is through scientific reductionism, then I will look at the science, but if this method of investigation is insufficient, I won't be afraid of just going into pondering mode...I'm distinctly critical of science in many areas...

 

[Tannhauser]

Disagree here. Psychology is one of the few domains where it's very difficult to quantify personality. I know people have done it and gotten some good results (MBTI, Big Five), but there's another aspect to it entirely that simply cannot be subjected to controlled trials, because the only thing those experiments capture are behavior and self-reported answers to questions. Same goes for many alternative systems of medicine that are by nature so holistic that they are basically immune to reductionism. It's precisely in these areas that INTPs shine and they are frequently interested in them too, especially since they generally find the rigid attention to evidence of INTJs and other types to be burdensome and confining.

Einstein would never have discovered what he did if he just bought into the idea that he couldn't discover any new theories unless he performed loads of controlled experiments. That would have handcuffed him. It's precisely his willingness to theorize/ponder without lab experimentation that led him to his insights. Apparently later on he refused to alter his beliefs about physics even when the evidence in favor of quantum mechanics was significant. So that was a problem for him, and I do agree rigidity can be an issue. But think about from his perspective: He spent his life building a theoretical edifice, and then he was faced with the prospect of tearing it all down and abandoning the idea that the universe was not such an orderly place after all. INTPs work hard at constructing their theories, and they get attached to them. Thankfully, for the most part their ideas tend to be accurate but not necessarily complete w/respect to hard data.

I get the point of this thread, but for me the principle at work here is if the best or only way to answer a question is through scientific reductionism, then I will look at the science, but if this method of investigation is insufficient, I won't be afraid of just going into pondering mode...I'm distinctly critical of science in many areas...

You are correct in one thing: the theories of Einstein and theories of, for example, Freud were both a-priori judgements. They were describing phenomena never before observed. But the difference is clear, and was discussed at length in the other thread: Einstein worked with clear assumptions, well-defined concepts corresponding to phenomena in the physical world, mathematical formulas, and performed thought experiments within this framework. If you pick up for example Freud's "Civilization and its discontents", you will discover not far into chapter one that his whole theory amounts to playing around with words. These words don't have any empirical analogues. They are subjective abstractions which never yield any concrete statement about anything.

You seem to have labeled science as 'scientific reductionism'. Thus it is somehow a value judgement on science versus the subjective abstractions mentioned above. But what is the value of those? If you believe in them unconditionally then it is no different than religious dogmatism. If you believe in then only conditionally, then they are subject to change at any point, never yielding anything useful.

 

[Hadoblado]

That seems a little contradictory, considering that is the INTPs ultimate goal- to find the truth, truth that cannot be argued because it is immutable and always valid.

But I understand what you're saying. I think it arises from our desire to be right, but not just to be right, to know what is true and what is not. So we can sometimes insist our point is flawless because it would he hard to accept that what we worked so hard on and questioned so vigorously is wrong.

But the truth is that it's better to accept that you're wrong than to hold on to it, because even uncertainty is better than being certain of an incorrect thesis, because then you can find the real truth rather than building upon a flawed foundation.


So if you've found a theory so strong that it can't be taken down, awesome. But don't assume it is or present it as it is. Be willing to critique it with further input.

I guess advice for us all, but I think we already know this. Another truth- we don't realize when this is the case because we all have rationale why some of our beliefs are unquestionable.

I think you mistake me. I'm not saying never be right. I'm saying that if you hold a position to which you can't think of a single possible counter-example, your position is not falsifiable and thus you end up being unable to ever grow past that belief. The number of beliefs that are difficult to prove wrong are infinite, most of them are contradictory and almost all of them are false (if you generalise a sample taken from an infinite population).

 

[Inquisitor]

You are correct in one thing: the theories of Einstein and theories of, for example, Freud were both a-priori judgements. They were describing phenomena never before observed. But the difference is clear, and was discussed at length in the other thread: Einstein worked with clear assumptions, well-defined concepts corresponding to phenomena in the physical world, mathematical formulas, and performed thought experiments within this framework. If you pick up for example Freud's "Civilization and its discontents", you will discover not far into chapter one that his whole theory amounts to playing around with words. These words don't have any empirical analogues. They are subjective abstractions which never yield any concrete statement about anything.

And yet...people still read Freud over 150 years later...I wonder why? The answer is obvious: even though he was "playing around with words" as you so condescendingly put it, those words still held so much truth for so many people that they are valuable. Now Jung believed that Freud reduced everything to "instinct" and that he therefore missed a large part of the equation when it came to the psychological type problem. That said, Freud still got a large part of it right, not to mention the fact that he was Jung's mentor. IOW, he captured part of the truth, but not all of it.

You seem to have labeled science as 'scientific reductionism'. Thus it is somehow a value judgement on science versus the subjective abstractions mentioned above. But what is the value of those? If you believe in them unconditionally then it is no different than religious dogmatism. If you believe in then only conditionally, then they are subject to change at any point, never yielding anything useful.

You're absolutely right that I'm making a value judgement on science. It is only one lens through which we can examine the universe, and yet it dominates virtually all of our institutions. Materially, we've never been better off b/c of science, but psychologically and spiritually, we've never been worse off. There is no product or piece of technology that will ever be able to solve the prime issues in human life, which are Happiness and Suffering. It's a paradox that the more materially advanced we become as a society, the more psychological problems become apparent (not to mention the increasingly rapid pace of technological progress and the dislocation and instability this causes) Jung actually made similar observations along with Schiller and concluded that the more specialized we become in our careers, the more we are reduced to using a single function and consequently repressing all the others. IOW, exclusively developing a single aspect of ourselves as opposed to a well-rounded individuality.

You're making a value judgement about subjective abstractions and equating them to religious dogmatism (which is the favorite argument of those for whom science is their religion). There's really no difference between the validity of either science or 'subjective abstractions' as you put it, but you believe that because many other people have 'validated' the same results experimentally that anything that is not scientifically validated is necessarily 'invalid'. That's a value judgement on your part, but I'm not sure you're seeing how this could be very dangerous b/c you then automatically dismiss a vast body of knowledge that is not scientifically 'valid'. And yet, it's precisely within that body of knowledge that you're most likely to find the answers that you're looking for vis-a-vis how to live happily, be in good health, and find fulfillment.

I get the feeling you're either not an INTP or you're going through a "skepticism" phase. I went through it myself when I was younger, until I realized skepticism doesn't lead much of anywhere at all. I've observed that while the online skeptic community is great at keeping up with the latest scientific developments (and they get really excited about them and why not? It is cool ), they also enjoy smashing anything unscientific like alternative medicine, homeopathy, etc. They cite the overwhelming scientific evidence that none of these modalities seem to have been found effective.

But here's where the skeptics fall into trouble: Instead of then asking why it is that many "unscientific" bodies of knowledge seem to have enjoyed so much popularity for so long (herbalism, Ayurveda, Chinese Medicine etc.) and investigating the ideas in those fields for themselves, they just dismiss them as "dogma" and "quackery." That's a real shame. That's the blind spot right there, and it makes them not much better than the religious fundamentalists they so enjoy tearing down. A "real" skeptic is someone who is open to many ideas and implements them in his/her own life (if possible) to ascertain their value.

Anything that survives for thousands of years is guaranteed to be valuable to humanity. Otherwise, it would not have survived for so long.

 

[Tannhauser]

You're making a value judgement about subjective abstractions and equating them to religious dogmatism (which is the favorite argument of those for whom science is their religion). There's really no difference between the validity of either science or 'subjective abstractions' as you put it, but you believe that because many other people have 'validated' the same results experimentally that anything that is not scientifically validated is necessarily 'invalid'. That's a value judgement on your part, but I'm not sure you're seeing how this could be very dangerous b/c you then automatically dismiss a vast body of knowledge that is not scientifically 'valid'. And yet, it's precisely within that body of knowledge that you're most likely to find the answers that you're looking for vis-a-vis how to live happily, be in good health, and find fulfillment.

Science is a specific choice of method. It is saying: here is my theory, here is a method for testing the theory, here is a concrete result which, if it shows up, will falsify the theory. Try to come up with a better theory if you can, using the same principle.

The subjective abstraction is a different category. It is saying: here is a bunch of concepts which have no clear definition, here is an extrapolation where I have reasoned with these concepts.

As a method for generating powerful statements about reality, one of these methods has shown to be extremely effective, the other one has yielded zero. Hence, indeed, I judge the subjective abstraction as less worth when they both try to describe reality (in particular, I assume "Civilization and its discontent" is a book about reality, and not about some abstract construction inside Freud's head).

Of course there is a whole different side to reality than that which we can express in terms of scientific statements (hence in this domain, it does not make sense to weigh science against subjective judgements). But here, any reasoning will do. Hence it is not very relevant as a test of one's capabilities as a thinker.

I get the feeling you're either not an INTP or you're going through a "skepticism" phase. I went through it myself when I was younger, until I realized skepticism doesn't lead much of anywhere at all.

Maybe it is here that we have extrapolated too far -- when one's type should somehow dictate one's stance on epistemology.

 

[Gather_Wanderer]

I love this thread.

Today I had to take a miniature break from work because I've been kind of stuck in a thought-loop similar to the vein of this thread. Wanting ultimate truth (as always) but realizing the limitations of my own vantage point and experiences, sorting through external knowledge...and doing it all over again, repeatedly. Lately, it is has been nonstop. Went out with the lady for drinks last night and she actually asked me, "Don't you know how to turn your brain off?" Recently I've been having more trouble than usual doing that and its been a little frustrating. Even after a a few drinks, if there's something pressing in my mind I won't shut up about it.

Falling prey to a smaller picture while mistaking it for a complete one. I find myself constantly articulating models as if there were no other factors.

I've been very aware of 'the smaller picture'. Half excitement/Half torment.
The exciting part comes when you make an agreement with yourself at the beginning of model-building that you will actually tear the whole thing down if necessary...which is hard to do at first. I've often said I have a mental 'file cabinet' of sorts, which allows me to come back to previous lines of thought if the current line I've been taking seems to run its course. And thoughts running their course or just outright being wrong, often I realize may just be parts of a bigger whole or bigger truth but need to be returned to later...hence the 'file-cabinet'.

 

[Sinny91]

And yet...people still read Freud over 150 years later...I wonder why? The answer is obvious: even though he was "playing around with words" as you so condescendingly put it, those words still held so much truth for so many people that they are valuable. Now Jung believed that Freud reduced everything to "instinct" and that he therefore missed a large part of the equation when it came to the psychological type problem. That said, Freud still got a large part of it right, not to mention the fact that he was Jung's mentor. IOW, he captured part of the truth, but not all of it.



You're absolutely right that I'm making a value judgement on science. It is only one lens through which we can examine the universe, and yet it dominates virtually all of our institutions. Materially, we've never been better off b/c of science, but psychologically and spiritually, we've never been worse off. There is no product or piece of technology that will ever be able to solve the prime issues in human life, which are Happiness and Suffering. It's a paradox that the more materially advanced we become as a society, the more psychological problems become apparent (not to mention the increasingly rapid pace of technological progress and the dislocation and instability this causes) Jung actually made similar observations along with Schiller and concluded that the more specialized we become in our careers, the more we are reduced to using a single function and consequently repressing all the others. IOW, exclusively developing a single aspect of ourselves as opposed to a well-rounded individuality.

You're making a value judgement about subjective abstractions and equating them to religious dogmatism (which is the favorite argument of those for whom science is their religion). There's really no difference between the validity of either science or 'subjective abstractions' as you put it, but you believe that because many other people have 'validated' the same results experimentally that anything that is not scientifically validated is necessarily 'invalid'. That's a value judgement on your part, but I'm not sure you're seeing how this could be very dangerous b/c you then automatically dismiss a vast body of knowledge that is not scientifically 'valid'. And yet, it's precisely within that body of knowledge that you're most likely to find the answers that you're looking for vis-a-vis how to live happily, be in good health, and find fulfillment.

I get the feeling you're either not an INTP or you're going through a "skepticism" phase. I went through it myself when I was younger, until I realized skepticism doesn't lead much of anywhere at all. I've observed that while the online skeptic community is great at keeping up with the latest scientific developments (and they get really excited about them and why not? It is cool ), they also enjoy smashing anything unscientific like alternative medicine, homeopathy, etc. They cite the overwhelming scientific evidence that none of these modalities seem to have been found effective.

But here's where the skeptics fall into trouble: Instead of then asking why it is that many "unscientific" bodies of knowledge seem to have enjoyed so much popularity for so long (herbalism, Ayurveda, Chinese Medicine etc.) and investigating the ideas in those fields for themselves, they just dismiss them as "dogma" and "quackery." That's a real shame. That's the blind spot right there, and it makes them not much better than the religious fundamentalists they so enjoy tearing down. A "real" skeptic is someone who is open to many ideas and implements them in his/her own life (if possible) to ascertain their value.

Anything that survives for thousands of years is guaranteed to be valuable to humanity. Otherwise, it would not have survived for so long.

Yea, I've noticed that your view(s) here are somewhat unpopular with a portion of the local populace, but I second quite a few of your notions here.

Although if there's one thing I'd refrain from, it's mixing your world views up with your views on typology. That's a recipe for disaster which creates unessecary ego wars, when really, time could be spent so much better by working together towards the same end.

As a side note, it doesn't help that alternative thinking still triggers hostile reactions. That alone is telling in its self.

To clarify, I also disagree with a number of your notions haha.

 

[redbaron]

And yet...people still read Freud over 150 years later...I wonder why? The answer is obvious: even though he was "playing around with words" as you so condescendingly put it, those words still held so much truth for so many people that they are valuable. Now Jung believed that Freud reduced everything to "instinct" and that he therefore missed a large part of the equation when it came to the psychological type problem. That said, Freud still got a large part of it right, not to mention the fact that he was Jung's mentor. IOW, he captured part of the truth, but not all of it.

Freud is all but removed from psychological fields of study these days. He gets a token nod for being some founding father figure of a field, while pretty much all of his ideas are dismissed. His one major contribution is outlining the concept of the subconscious.

Most of his stuff is just absurd if you actually read it.

You're absolutely right that I'm making a value judgement on science. It is only one lens through which we can examine the universe, and yet it dominates virtually all of our institutions. Materially, we've never been better off b/c of science, but psychologically and spiritually, we've never been worse off. There is no product or piece of technology that will ever be able to solve the prime issues in human life, which are Happiness and Suffering. It's a paradox that the more materially advanced we become as a society, the more psychological problems become apparent (not to mention the increasingly rapid pace of technological progress and the dislocation and instability this causes) Jung actually made similar observations along with Schiller and concluded that the more specialized we become in our careers, the more we are reduced to using a single function and consequently repressing all the others. IOW, exclusively developing a single aspect of ourselves as opposed to a well-rounded individuality.

Science dominates most institutions? You mean money.

Shit it'd even make more sense if you blamed sport or fashion for the collective spiritual decline, but then it's hard to really quantify spiritual decline anyway and I'd say the issue is far more rooted in the corporate sector than the scientific one.

enjoy smashing anything unscientific like alternative medicine, homeopathy, etc. They cite the overwhelming scientific evidence that none of these modalities seem to have been found effective.

Homeopathy's actually very scientific and the reason people bash it is way more to do with pharmaceutical propaganda than science. Scientific reporting on alternative methods of healing is indeed awful, but who's to blame?

Who benefits most from distorting fact and has the most significant motive to discredit homeopathy and other similar disciplines?

Also just on that topic, the thing I tend to dismiss (and see others dismiss) about alternative healings is something that many of its proponents incessantly promote, which is that their systems have mystical significance (marketing basically). Ayurveda for example takes three bodily consitutions and assigns them some arbitrary values and recommends a bunch of stuff based on that.

Thing is it's all pretty regular health advice that you could apply with or without the system itself.

The benefit of the system is that it gives people something to buy into or identify with I guess - "I'm a rank 27 Ayurvurdaristologimist with 197 monthweeks of Ayurvurdarisming". People love that shit.

I'm not against systems designed to help people live healthier lives but they're not mystical (as many people do claim). The remedies used in Homeopathy for example, are all derived from trial and error testings, recording results and comparison. In other words, empirical study.

The parts of the field that yield real results are inherently scientific in nature. It's just a method for building knowledge. The fact that there are blowhards who misapply statistical ideals is less to do with science (if at all) than other agendas.

Actually I think we had a discussion about that in relation to MBTI hehe.

We live in a world dominated and directed by money, marketing and collective social ego and authority. It's not a scientific one by a long stretch - I wish.

 

[Inquisitor]

Science is a specific choice of method. It is saying: here is my theory, here is a method for testing the theory, here is a concrete result which, if it shows up, will falsify the theory. Try to come up with a better theory if you can, using the same principle.

I don't have a problem with that.

The subjective abstraction is a different category. It is saying: here is a bunch of concepts which have no clear definition, here is an extrapolation where I have reasoned with these concepts.

Ok...What are some examples of subjective abstractions then in your view? How about if I don't have any scientific data to back up my assertions, but I have experience in a certain domain? Do my assertions then become invalid? How about if I've tried to base my ideas off of personal observations? Are my ideas now no better than superstition/belief? If this is what you believe, then how can you ever hope to know anything? That's why I think this whole line of reasoning falls under the "skepticism" category...but maybe you're not a skeptic, I don't know...

As a method for generating powerful statements about reality, one of these methods has shown to be extremely effective, the other one has yielded zero. Hence, indeed, I judge the subjective abstraction as less worth when they both try to describe reality (in particular, I assume "Civilization and its discontent" is a book about reality, and not about some abstract construction inside Freud's head).

So you're basically saying that b/c Freud uses a bunch of subjective abstractions, what he wrote was not valuable? If so, I disagree with that, and I think a lot of other people would as well.

Of course there is a whole different side to reality than that which we can express in terms of scientific statements (hence in this domain, it does not make sense to weigh science against subjective judgements). But here, any reasoning will do. Hence it is not very relevant as a test of one's capabilities as a thinker.

The only thing that's relevant is how much effort you invested into understanding something. Some people have more or less talent it's true, but that's nothing compared to effort.

Maybe it is here that we have extrapolated too far -- when one's type should somehow dictate one's stance on epistemology.

I'm not on a witch hunt here. I made that comment b/c there have been several posts in a row from you along the lines of "if it's not scientific" then it's bs. I disagree with that line of thinking b/c I think it's too confining.

 

[Jungle]

In my opinion Freud was INTJ and Jung was INTP. The conflict between them looks like a case study in Ni-Te vs Ti-Ne.

 

[Seteleechete]

INTPs are generally not as devoted to the "data" as INTJs, and by "data" I mean objective evidence, peer-reviewed scientific studies, generally accepted scientific facts, and so on. Type dynamics predicts this, MBTI pegs them as being excellent professional scientists, and personal experience also confirms this to be true. INTPs, OTOH, are much more comfortable theorizing on their own by making a priori assumptions and then making deductions from there. It really is the difference between inductive (INTJ) and deductive logic (INTP). B/c there were several posts from Tannhauser in which he more or less asserted/implied that anything unscientific was basically no better than personal belief/religious dogma

+
Was gonna write a reply at some point but inquisitor put it out much better with this.

 

[Tannhauser]

To answer one of your questions, Inquisitor:

Ok...What are some examples of subjective abstractions then in your view? How about if I don't have any scientific data to back up my assertions, but I have experience in a certain domain? Do my assertions then become invalid? How about if I've tried to base my ideas off of personal observations? Are my ideas now no better than superstition/belief? If this is what you believe, then how can you ever hope to know anything? That's why I think this whole line of reasoning falls under the "skepticism" category...but maybe you're not a skeptic, I don't know...

Here is an example, a quote from Descartes himself, talking about why we should not enquire about the divine:

For since we are limited, it would be absurd for us to determine anything concerning the infinite... It seems that nobody has any business to think about such matters unless he regards his own mind as infinite

This is the typical sort of deductions I read many times in Freud's "Discontents". It seems like logic, but is gibberish. What is "infinite"? What does it mean for a mind to be infinite? Can we not talk about infinite sets in mathematics? If Descartes was an INTP, this is a prime example of the sort of subjective reasoning I see as a flaw in the INTPs intellect.

I have never claimed that reasoning should be supported by data to be valid, as you claim that I have. I have nothing against a-priori judgements and deductions. Without them we could not do mathematics, for example. However, mathematics and logic, which people value as thinkers, has little to do with the sort of reasoning for example Freud undertook.

What enabled, for example, Russell to come up with Russell's paradox and identify an inconsistency in the foundations of mathematics itself? Clearly it was not working with empirical data. Instead, it was the work of his predecessors, who carefully stated all their assumptions and definitions. That is how one actually discovers truth. How close are we to discovering truth by reasoning in terms of Freud's concepts? Nobody knows, because they don't have definitions. You can deduce any conclusion you want with them. So I then might ask you: how can you ever hope to discover truth using them?

 

[Inquisitor]

To answer one of your questions, Inquisitor:

Here is an example, a quote from Descartes himself, talking about why we should not enquire about the divine:
This is the typical sort of deductions I read many times in Freud's "Discontents". It seems like logic, but is gibberish. What is "infinite"? What does it mean for a mind to be infinite? Can we not talk about infinite sets in mathematics? If Descartes was an INTP, this is a prime example of the sort of subjective reasoning I see as a flaw in the INTPs intellect.

I have never claimed that reasoning should be supported by data to be valid, as you claim that I have. I have nothing against a-priori judgements and deductions. Without them we could not do mathematics, for example. However, mathematics and logic, which people value as thinkers, has little to do with the sort of reasoning for example Freud undertook.

What enabled, for example, Russell to come up with Russell's paradox and identify an inconsistency in the foundations of mathematics itself? Clearly it was not working with empirical data. Instead, it was the work of his predecessors, who carefully stated all their assumptions and definitions. That is how one actually discovers truth. How close are we to discovering truth by reasoning in terms of Freud's concepts? Nobody knows, because they don't have definitions. You can deduce any conclusion you want with them. So I then might ask you: how can you ever hope to discover truth using them?

To be quite honest, I don't really know much about Freud. I read Civilization in college, but haven't touched it since. Do you not find Jung's words resonating with you? Every time I read his work, it's almost like he's verbalizing something I'm aware of, but that's rooted deeply in my unconscious. His definitions are well-established beforehand, but it's those definitions you seem to have a problem with, and I don't have a good answer for you on that one. I don't think psychology as a field can be subjected to precise definitions in the same way as math or physics. So what to do? Do you ditch the whole field? You can if it really is that uncomfortable for you. To me all those ideas in math/physics/chemistry/etc. are not personally relevant. Are they more exact/precise? Absolutely. But does the lack of precision in Jungian analytical psychology just invalidate it as a field? I would disagree. It's certainly much more relevant to me than knowing advanced physics...

 

[INTPWolf]

My biggest problem with the world is that i think up a logical system to explain something to myself, but the actual reason is meaningless, like when someone says something that they don't realize could have far reaching meaning. I overthink things is all, even when there is no need to overthink anything, you toss a little bit of anxiety and/or low self esteem that we INTPs are cursed with and you end with this ( maybe,i know its more complex) equation; |Logic|(Anxiety - Confidence) = Fear

 

[Hadoblado]

The circus has left town and can be found here. I'd like to express appreciation to those who remained on track or kept the issues largely separate, as it seems that the actual topic itself is left relatively unmuddied despite a the eviction of 16 posts.

 

[emmabobary]

To be quite honest, I don't really know much about Freud. I read Civilization in college, but haven't touched it since. Do you not find Jung's words resonating with you? Every time I read his work, it's almost like he's verbalizing something I'm aware of, but that's rooted deeply in my unconscious. His definitions are well-established beforehand, but it's those definitions you seem to have a problem with, and I don't have a good answer for you on that one. I don't think psychology as a field can be subjected to precise definitions in the same way as math or physics. So what to do? Do you ditch the whole field? You can if it really is that uncomfortable for you. To me all those ideas in math/physics/chemistry/etc. are not personally relevant. Are they more exact/precise? Absolutely. But does the lack of precision in Jungian analytical psychology just invalidate it as a field? I would disagree. It's certainly much more relevant to me than knowing advanced physics...

I think I can help here, it is true that Freud's work is only valuable till certain point, what he contributed to psychology in general is pretty much the notion of the unconscious. But also, what he theorizes isn't invalid gibberish, he -and later Lacan- work especifically in the language field. And here is where Tannhauser makes a mistake, Freud, his followers and psychoanalysis in general don't work with the 'real world' they're not theorizing, as most of the social and psychological authors, with actual real data , not even with a scientific logic, they theorize about lenguaje, where this phenomena comes from and its effects on everything relative yo humanity. As you can see it's just another approach that has nothing to do with science, it pretends to go even further than science.

 

[Tannhauser]

To be quite honest, I don't really know much about Freud. I read Civilization in college, but haven't touched it since. Do you not find Jung's words resonating with you? Every time I read his work, it's almost like he's verbalizing something I'm aware of, but that's rooted deeply in my unconscious. His definitions are well-established beforehand, but it's those definitions you seem to have a problem with, and I don't have a good answer for you on that one. I don't think psychology as a field can be subjected to precise definitions in the same way as math or physics. So what to do? Do you ditch the whole field? You can if it really is that uncomfortable for you. To me all those ideas in math/physics/chemistry/etc. are not personally relevant. Are they more exact/precise? Absolutely. But does the lack of precision in Jungian analytical psychology just invalidate it as a field? I would disagree. It's certainly much more relevant to me than knowing advanced physics...

Your main points seem to be that we should accept reasoning which has psychological utility, and that we should accept reasoning when the alternative is no reasoning at all. This is very close to religious thinking: "how can we live without positing beliefs about everything?" The answer is simple: remain agnostic with regards to that which you cannot know. Don't construct systems based on unclear reasoning and psychological bias. In fact, I think such systems represent "reductionism" in the true sense of the word.

As an aside, it is irrelevant what I am "uncomfortable" with. You seem to categorize rigorous thinking as some preference, and that one has to be brave and "comfortable" with taking the step into muddled speculations. I view this purely as a rhetorical technique.

Also, I don't know why you are equating the speculations of Jung with the whole field of psychology. I have never claimed psychology as a field is unscientific.

 

[emmabobary]

Hahahaha
You guys took it too personally. At the end what was the debate about?
Oh I can recall Inquisitor questioning empirical and scientific logic and Tannhauser jolting some psychological theories because they were not based on scientific method.
.....
And oh! My . I'm just reading some pretty wrong statements about homeopathy right now.
But I can't see where the disagreement is!
Yes: science, and specifically scientific method is a safe via for human mind to get to 'reality', or as I like to call: the object itself.
Yes: psychology, sociology, linguistics -but not homeopathy, psycoespiritual approaches- also help to clarify the scenario, but by working mostly with the subject. ( psychology in its therapeutical aspect is another topic).
They're just totally different approaches, I'm not trying to bring a reconciliation atmosphere here. But I always saw this two as parallel lines of thought, not opposites, not overlapped.

Most importantly, there is a naive faith in one's ability to extrapolate one's reasoning endlessly, with minimal empirical evidence and minimal amount of experience. It is what we might call subjective logic: find some one little piece of data or one small observation, and start running the machinery of extrapolation.

It is very similar to the kind of metaphysical reasoning that Kant critiqued in Critique of Pure Reason

THIS doesn't make much sense to me, empirical evidence isn't always needed in order to achieve one truth, let's agree about that.

Our biggest Bias -assuming MBTI theory is unquestionable- has to be logical , since we spend our lives as INTPs building these theories and approaches to understand the outside world.
Maybe trouble comes when we get attached to them, they mix with our principles, our way to feel and to relate the world. When empirical evidence against our logical beliefs comes up it becomes hard for us to tear them apart in order to build new approaches, just because these theories are structural for our 'self'.
Hmmmm that could explain why so much depression...

 

[Tannhauser]

You are right about one thing, emmabobary. The discussion somehow turned into a debate about epistemology instead of the original topic. I guess I made it confusing by introducing Kant as well -- that was not really relevant to the topic of the INTPs intellect.

The weakness of the INTP seems clear now: it is the willingness to play the logical game with dubious concepts, and become too confident in the conclusions. For example INTJs are no "smarter" in this regard, it is just that they circumvent this problem by relying on empirical data.

If anything, I think depression is a result of a lack of coherent logical beliefs. Probably the most painful times for me have been when I have been stuck in loops of reasoning with meaningless concepts.

 

[Miss spelt]

But I can't see where the disagreement is!

the disagreement is that Inquisitor identifies so strongly with the INTP type that he practically ... is ... I-N-T-P

and couldn't handle criticisms regarding INTPs so became intensely defensive, whereupon he took it upon himself to argue as fervently as he could to put the perceived aggressor (tannhauser) into the dirt for slandering him.

 

[emmabobary]

I won't judge subjective positions. Inquisitor has a preference for subjective logic. Also Tannhauser has a preference to think everything from scientific logic. That's OK, but that wasn't my point.
I can't say someone is right or wrong based on peculiarities. I mean, I won't make an interpretation of the behavior in order to judge their ideas. I don't care what position they have in the debate, their ideas wasn't wrong, both of them were valid ....at some point. Then they turned it into something else XD.
What you're pointing, I find it irrelevant.

 

[Inquisitor]

You are right about one thing, emmabobary. The discussion somehow turned into a debate about epistemology instead of the original topic. I guess I made it confusing by introducing Kant as well -- that was not really relevant to the topic of the INTPs intellect.

The weakness of the INTP seems clear now: it is the willingness to play the logical game with dubious concepts, and become too confident in the conclusions. For example INTJs are no "smarter" in this regard, it is just that they circumvent this problem by relying on empirical data.

If anything, I think depression is a result of a lack of coherent logical beliefs. Probably the most painful times for me have been when I have been stuck in loops of reasoning with meaningless concepts.

Ok...enough with the abstract stuff...

Do you believe alternative medicine such as Ayurveda, Chinese Medicine, Homeopathy, etc. are worthwhile approaches for dealing with health and disease? If the answer is "no", then you're not comfortable with these systems of medicine for whatever reason.

Do you value religious teachings of any kind? Again if the answer is "no", then you are presumably not comfortable with those either.

Do you find typology to be useful to you in understanding yourself and other? This includes not just MBTI, but Jungian analytical psychology that has not been empirically validated as of yet...

What do all these things have in common? They have not been scientifically validated (except for MBTI, which does have a large number of studies supporting it). I'm saying if you dismiss them outright because of that, you're missing out. That's all.

There are some things that people have been doing for thousands of years that definitely do work, but science hasn't had time/motivation or been unable as of yet to verify their efficacy. That's the essence of what I'm saying. Science is great for a lot of things, but from where I'm sitting, we live in a highly materialistic culture with amazing technologies but people are sick. Chronic disease is rampant. Obesity is getting worse (60-70% are overweight and our BMI standards in the US are actually higher than those in other countries), mental illness affects probably around 20% of us according to the NIH. This is due to unhealthy minds and unhealthy bodies.

Prevention truly is the best form of medicine, and in my experience, science has given us loads of cures/treatments, but little wisdom in terms of how to take care of ourselves. For me personally, Ayurveda has been a lifesaver, so has Buddhism, and typology has helped me figure out what I should be doing with my life career-wise. If I had refused to delve into these fields b/c of skepticism, I would not be nearly as happy or fulfilled now...You can see where I'm coming from now. Skepticism at its best is trying to protect innocent people from being taken advantage of by quacks. At its worst (Dawkins), it's just a destructive ideology. I haven't read his book, but I've seen some of his lectures, and while I agree with parts of it, his wholesale dismissal of religion is what bothers me. A lot of really smart people over the ages have been religious believers and made great contributions to theology, philosophy, and even science!

 

[FacsimilePerson]

I won't judge subjective positions. Inquisitor has a preference for subjective logic. Also Tannhauser has a preference to think everything from scientific logic. That's OK, but that wasn't my point.
I can't say someone is right or wrong based on peculiarities. I mean, I won't make an interpretation of the behavior in order to judge their ideas. I don't care what position they have in the debate, their ideas wasn't wrong, both of them were valid ....at some point. Then they turned it into something else XD.
What you're pointing, I find it irrelevant.

What is subjective logic? You speak language, I don't think logic is valid from language and therefore the very dialogue is 'invalid' to this criteria!

 

[Miss spelt]

What you're pointing, I find it irrelevant.

You said you can't see what caused the disagreement.

I told you precisely what caused it.

 

[emmabobary]

I'm starting to get tired of Inquisitor's animosity.
He wants revenge so bad

 

[FacsimilePerson]

I'm starting to get tired of Inquisitor's animosity.
He wants revenge so bad

It's nothing to do with revenge, it is an inquisition.

 

[emmabobary]

You said you can't see what caused the disagreement.

I told you precisely what caused it.

Pffffffffft I could say, based on your logic, that what caused the disagreement precisely was the way they were raised, when exactly inquisitor was 8 years old: her mother slapped him in the face so hard it provoked a trauma which is appearing in this facet of his that makes impossible to have a productive discussion with him ....

that's just irrelevant to the original debate.

You said what you think is the precise moment where everything deviated.
I'm telling you it's irrelevant.

 

[FacsimilePerson]

We should certainly enforce an analysis of everyone's childhood and stipulate full disclosure, I think it'll unveil highly pertinent biases for this discourse to be contradicted as 'objective'.

 

[Miss spelt]

Pffffffffft I could say, based on your logic, that what caused the disagreement precisely was the way they were raised, when exactly inquisitor was 8 years old: her mother slapped him in the face so hard it provoked a trauma which is appearing in this facet of his that makes impossible to have a productive discussion with him ....

that's just irrelevant to the original debate.

You said what you think is the precise moment where everything deviated.
I'm telling you it's irrelevant.

ok

the difference between my idea and yours
is that yours is stupid
and mine is correct

Mine is an inductive conclusion based off of objective data that has been disclosed on this forum. It's information available to all. All the pieces are there, put them together.

 

[FacsimilePerson]

Stop this senseless debate, my children, when we could UNIFY against the inquisition we each have to behold due to others' subjective criterion.

 

[Inquisitor]

the disagreement is that Inquisitor identifies so strongly with the INTP type that he practically ... is ... I-N-T-P

and couldn't handle criticisms regarding INTPs so became intensely defensive, whereupon he took it upon himself to argue as fervently as he could to put the perceived aggressor (tannhauser) into the dirt for slandering him.

Just seems curious why Tannhauser as a new member is trying to pick at the weaknesses of INTPs and typology as opposed to their strengths...

Also, there are no proposed solutions in any of his posts, it just seems to be a condemnation, as opposed to Archie's posts which are usually quite constructive and are focused on finding a solution to a certain problem.

I would come at it from the perspective of, "I struggle with this issue, and the remedy I've found that works is X." It's almost like he's just trying to analyze his own flaws for the hell of it. It just seems so destructive and meaningless...

 

[FacsimilePerson]

I have an appeal to authority:

"I do everything I think possible or acceptable to escape from this /x/trap\x/ THREAD." --Jacques Derrida, FP's Revision v. 1

 

[emmabobary]

ok

the difference between my idea and yours
is that yours is stupid
and mine is correct

Mine is an inductive conclusion based off of objective data that has been disclosed on this forum. It's information available to all. All the pieces are there, put them together.

https://youtu.be/svAgSM9OJl4

 

[Teax]

Just seems curious why Tannhauser as a new member is trying to pick at the weaknesses of INTPs and typology as opposed to their strengths...

It's a duality, in the sense that whatever is not a weakness is just as much a strength. But in conversation with humans, it is difficult to talk about strengths as the information gets overwhelmingly muddled by everyone's ego. Weaknesses on the other hand are much easier to crystalize out of the mud. I typed myself as INTP, back then, based on the weaknesses as well, much easier.

Also, there are no proposed solutions in any of his posts, it just seems to be a condemnation, as opposed to Archie's posts which are usually quite constructive and are focused on finding a solution to a certain problem.

clearly stating a problem is half the solution... In this particular case there is no explicit solution needed, as being aware of the problem is sufficient to bypass it.

 

[Miss spelt]

emmababy - you automatically lose with that, beyond reprieve.

inquisitor - seems strange to you perhaps, but i think it was contextually valid as an approach. you do remind me of architect.. .. . ... ... he's not an intp tho.

nothing is meaningless about destruction. If you equate destruction with meaningless then I'm afraid you aren't an INTP sorry

 

[emmabobary]

emmababy - you automatically lose with that, beyond reprieve.

inquisitor - seems strange to you perhaps, but i think it was contextually valid as an approach. you do remind me of architect.. .. . ... ... he's not an intp tho.

nothing is meaningless about destruction. If you equate destruction with meaningless then I'm afraid you aren't an INTP sorry

I was just following your game, since you think you're always right about your statements, I think I must be absolutely right in everything I say as well. Plus I thought you would like it, you said you were a slut...

 

[Miss spelt]

Look how stupid you are, for all to see.

 

[emmabobary]

What? Was it wrong to call you slut? Where was I wrong this time? Enlight me miss spelt.
Now I remember, you were the funny girl wronging everything and everyone!
I thought you were smarter
"Antes eras chévere miss spelt" :/

 

[Inquisitor]

inquisitor - seems strange to you perhaps, but i think it was contextually valid as an approach. you do remind me of architect.. .. . ... ... he's not an intp tho.

nothing is meaningless about destruction. If you equate destruction with meaningless then I'm afraid you aren't an INTP sorry

Tell Architect he's not an INTP...lol. And you're wrong about him. The second part of your comment is meaningless. There I just destroyed it. I must be an INTP.

It's a duality, in the sense that whatever is not a weakness is just as much a strength. But in conversation with humans, it is difficult to talk about strengths as the information gets overwhelmingly muddled by everyone's ego. Weaknesses on the other hand are much easier to crystalize out of the mud. I typed myself as INTP, back then, based on the weaknesses as well, much easier.

Very abstract, and I would disagree. You can't really type yourself accurately based on your weaknesses alone. That's actually a major part of the theory of typology as Jung describes it. The "weak" part of yourself is the unconscious part for everyone and therefore not within the realm of conscious awareness for most people. In conjunction with an understanding of your dominant tendencies, you are right that looking at the weaknesses may be of help. The dominant function has strengths and weaknesses itself, and Tannhauser was referring to the tendency of INTPs to over-extrapolate from a weak foundation, which is valid. But I also think this is a strength b/c we are not so beholden to scientific evidence that we are afraid to explore unscientific approaches.

clearly stating a problem is half the solution... In this particular case there is no explicit solution needed, as being aware of the problem is sufficient to bypass it.

I'll have to think about this one...

 

[Teax]

But I also think this is a strength b/c we are not so beholden to scientific evidence that we are afraid to explore unscientific approaches.

I agree with you on that it is a strength. Or to be more precise, it can be used as such. Weakness/Strength is not an absolute attribute, it is relative to a third aspect... a cause. As per the S-centric culture we live in it is typically considered a weakness but we can choose any baseline.... as long as we are clear what we are talking about.

I am merely stating that the entire thread comes down to being aware of a pitfall of being an INTP. There is no disagreement, just a play on terms.