Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect
An ad hominem is any element of an exchange that pertains to the person rather than the person's position. If I were to tell you you had a pattern of making reference to people's credentials rather than the truth values of their claims, that would be an ad hominem (though not actually a fallacy).
If I then went on to provide examples of this such as the afore-mentioned dismissal of Tannhauser as non-INTP or worse: a skeptic, the fact my position as a mod entered the equation when my notoriety as an SJW was sufficient to justify the reprimand, and that you focused on the state of my mind rather than my position as stated (assuming that when I say "don't ad hom" I actually mean "I disagree with your position so don't state it", when part of my post was encouraging you to state it).
Semantics. Jesus f*cking Christ you remind me of my ISTJ father. His nitpicking is the bane of my existence. You definitely weren't thinking very clearly when you made that post. Fact: If I give you the slightest excuse to pounce on me for making an "ad hominem", you're so eager to bash me that you'll do it...probably b/c I declined to talk to you in your witch-hunt thread...
For the record, you seem very naive. Credentials (experience, education, domain knowledge, etc.) do actually matter more than what someone actually says. I can spout "truth" all day long and pretend to be an expert and many people will probably buy into it. How do you think con men and quacks get away with what they do? The most important thing to consider when listening to someone's advice/opinion is that person's experience and expertise. If you disagree, then the only thing I can tell you is to just wait and see...When push comes to shove, if you've got a major problem in your life, you're going to enlist the help of a professional, not some guy who speaks "truth."
I guess my interpretation can be illustrated by asking you why it's important to label someone as a skeptic or a non-INTP, when you could just tell them why the things they've said are wrong? Why must you put someone in a category that you then dismiss ("skepticism is a phase, in my experience skepticism leads to prematurely dismissing tradition and beliefs"), rather than address their ideas for the quality they have with the resources at your disposal?
The answer is because if I am successful in applying an accurate label to him, then I can predict with a fair amount of accuracy how he's going to react. In this case, if he is a skeptic (which he seems to be), no amount of a priori deductive logic is going to sway him from his beliefs, so it's not worth making those kinds of posts. OTOH, I can predict that if I write about scientific studies that refute his claims, he's probably going to listen, or at the very least consider what I'm saying. (BTW Tannhauser if you think what I said about you is inaccurate feel free to correct...I'm only writing down my impressions) That's the whole point of typology. It's to put people into boxes so that you can understand the relationship between you and them better.
If he really is an INTP (and he seems to believe he is), and furthermore is trying to understand himself better (which seems to be the objective of his posts) and I have correctly labeled him as falling into the "skeptic" camp, then I can share my experience and feel confident that what I'm saying might
be of interest. I was a skeptic myself in the past. I experimented with it. I won't say that I've "moved on" from skepticism as a whole b/c I think there's still much that can be learned from people who are firmly ensconced in the skeptic community, but ultimately, I found the belief system to be fairly useless
. That was the main point of my post.
You seem like a categoriser, and in my experience categorisers tend to spend too much time miscategorising people then unjustly dismissing them.
Hypocrisy. You're categorizing me as a categorizer. You are right.