Thread split from [The Weakness and Limitations of an INTP's Intellect] - Inquisitor and Hadoblado o

[Yellow]

I get the feeling you're either not an INTP or you're going through a "skepticism" phase

Here, I was under the impression that you opted had *out* of the witch-hunt. It's hardly fair to continue hunting others.

 

[Miss spelt]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

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.

Fallacy
also
also

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.

Fallacy

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.

Fallacy

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

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

"It's too confining" said the man whose planet is smaller than himself. It makes sense. Now he's looking at the planet carefully, as if examining the various properties.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

Yeah sure I'm in. All criticisms are welcome.

I am not going to witch hunt anyone, thank you very much. It's way too difficult to type someone accurately over the web.

The whole idea of having someone younger and with less life experience tell me that he knows what my type is better than I do despite the fact that he's never met me in person and has only read a few of my posts really bothers me.

Out.

I get the feeling you're either not an INTP or you're going through a "skepticism" phase.

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.

~ Inquisitor

It's not okay to ad hominem someone using type just because you disagree with a position. It's just not on. If you think science is over-rated then state as much, make a thread even. If you then think INTPs have a penchant for thinking science is over-rated, that's another claim. These are fine, but don't be a pitchfork ninja, come back to the witch-hunt thread or don't witch-hunt at all.

 

[Inquisitor]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

~ Inquisitor

It's not okay to ad hominem someone using type just because you disagree with a position. It's just not on. If you think science is over-rated then state as much, make a thread even. If you then think INTPs have a penchant for thinking science is over-rated, that's another claim. These are fine, but don't be a pitchfork ninja, come back to the witch-hunt thread or don't witch-hunt at all.

Blow me.

On a serious note, (and I'm only saying this b/c you're a mod), you are not allowed to abuse your mod authority and accuse someone of "ad hominem" attacks just because you disagree with their point. That's exactly what's happening here. There was no ad hominem attack on my part anywhere in this thread or in any other interaction I have had with Tannhauser.

My point was very simple so pay attention:

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, I made the observation that he either 1) might not be an INTP or 2) he was a skeptic. I'm actually leaning in the direction of #2 based on what I've read from him thus far. In any case, it was one or two sentences in a much longer post and hardly my main focus.

If you think that's an ad hominem...you're not thinking clearly.

 

[redbaron]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

Usage of inductive or deductive reasoning isn't something predicated on type, so bringing up the type is irrelevant. If you're going to outline a discrepancy between modes of reasoning, there's no need to pull out the type-card. Even if not Ad Hom it's still a Red Herring at best.

Also in regards to this:

INTPs are generally not as devoted to the "data" as INTJs

I know this might be hard to understand but here on the forum you're actually speaking to individuals, not generals (except SpaceYeti).

Statistical syllogism doesn't benefit anyone here.

 

[Inquisitor]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

Usage of inductive or deductive reasoning isn't something predicated on type, so bringing up the type is irrelevant. If you're going to outline a discrepancy between modes of reasoning, there's no need to pull out the type-card. Even if not Ad Hom it's still a Red Herring at best.

Jung disagrees with you...but I guess you already knew that and just didn't care...

Also in regards to this:

I know this might be hard to understand but here on the forum you're actually speaking to individuals, not generals (except SpaceYeti).

Statistical syllogism doesn't benefit anyone here.

In the absence of actually meeting and being around someone, the only thing we have on this forum is "generals." That's why it's virtually impossible to definitely type someone as "X" simply by reading their forum posts. It might be possible to rule out a particular type, but this is still very iffy at best. I know you've abandoned the MBTI because you think it's a bulldozer, but I'll never share your views on that.

 

[Hadoblado]

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). See:

If you think science is over-rated then state as much, make a thread even. If you then think INTPs have a penchant for thinking science is over-rated, that's another claim.

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?

You seem like a categoriser, and in my experience categorisers tend to spend too much time miscategorising people then unjustly dismissing them.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

In the absence of actually meeting and being around someone, the only thing we have on this forum is "generals." That's why it's virtually impossible to definitely type someone as "X" simply by reading their forum posts. It might be possible to rule out a particular type, but this is still very iffy at best. I know you've abandoned the MBTI because you think it's a bulldozer, but I'll never share your views on that.

People don't exist in the discussion. What matters are their arguments, if you are unable to address what they say, you are unable to prove your point and instead take shots at them as individuals, regardless if you think of them as generalisations or not.

I could bring up numerous examples where you've refused to see someone else's point based on their life experience, age, what and how they said what they meant, etc.

You have a penchant for denying credibility, appealing to authority and derailing disputes towards your own views and ridiculing other participants. Not only is such behaviour widely considered discourteous on the interpersonal scale, it also shows how your brain operates to label everything you disagree with, instead of understanding and replying to what's actually been said.

 

[Inquisitor]

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.

 

[Inquisitor]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

I could bring up numerous examples where you've refused to see someone else's point based on their life experience, age, what and how they said what they meant, etc.

Do it then.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

@Blaurraun: Make it easier on yourself and use the post he just wrote to Hado.

 

[Animekitty]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

From Official Witch-Hunt Thread

Out.

Why do INTP's show so much emotional reactivity when they are confronted by people who question their logic in reference to themselves? I have no emotional investment in what happens when people question my logic. In the expression of how I understand concepts I allow disagreement of anything regarding that I can explain my reasoning. The problem with the emphasis of my reasoning as superior being ego driven is that I do explain how I know such things and do not have any attachment to incorrect propositions barring that I take into account what I know about myself and others. If someone says that I am incorrect I am not offended even in a continues stream of allegations. The contention is that the more they present what they assume is true I view this as an opportunity to convie my perspective. Of course being prescriptive can negate the conclusion but do not tell you if your premises are fallible. Deciding the fallibility of what a person says about me has nothing to do with whether they are fallible on purpose. That is what I see here. The inability to divorce fallibility from intentionality. Certain INTP's view fallibility as intentional. And fallibility also has nothing to do with Intelligence. People are not stupid on purpose and people are not mistaken on purpose. It is inconsequential for me to be angry at people who reason poorly because as long as I present an descriptive opinion explicitly it is already assumed to be biased therefore not subject to the contention of my ego. The mistake is to think my opinion is a formal proof.

Spoiler

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/98

 

[redbaron]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

Do it then.

Lol

Teehee

Are you even human?

 

[redbaron]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

Jung disagrees with you...but I guess you already knew that and just didn't care...

Well he doesn't you just read it that way.

Also:

(Citation needed).

In the absence of actually meeting and being around someone, the only thing we have on this forum is "generals." That's why it's virtually impossible to definitely type someone as "X" simply by reading their forum posts. It might be possible to rule out a particular type, but this is still very iffy at best. I know you've abandoned the MBTI because you think it's a bulldozer, but I'll never share your views on that.

Not sure what your point is because you don't need to know anything about MBTI to have a discussion on a forum without it turning into a bunch of straw mans and fallacies (possibly even works the opposite way). Is it really that hard for you to just deal with people's points and not their personal status e.g. age, education level, MBTI type etc?

And no as already mentioned numerous times I haven't abandoned the MBTI, you just read it that way.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

Hypocrisy. You're categorizing me as a categorizer. You are right.

FYI if my tongue had been jammed any further into my cheek I'd have tasted the outside of my face.

Also FYI, since mods don't adjudicate the cases that are considered personal, and this seems to have been taken to a very personal place, you need not fear me banning you out of spite. AFAIK I've never mentioned you to the other mods, nor acted towards you in any official capacity, and you can expect this state of play to continue. I still moderate posts and threads etc., but outside of this function as far as you're concerned I may as well be a vanilla poster.

Edit: Moved so that the other thread can continue unimpeded.

 

[Inquisitor]

Re: The weaknesses and limitations of an INTP's intellect

Well he doesn't you just read it that way.

Also:

(Citation needed).

Again, it's comments like this that make me think you just don't really understand very much about typology yet seem to be very critical of it...

Here's what Jung actually said:

But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency [p. 482] to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom.

External facts are not the aim and origin of [Ti]. … [Ti] formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights, but with regard to facts its attitude is one of reserve. They are all very well as illustrative examples, but they must not be allowed to predominate. Facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake. If ever this happens, it is merely a concession to the extraverted style.”

Also:

Why Te is Inductive and Ti is Deductive

And I'm sure again someone is going to jump on me for "referencing authority"...

Not sure what your point is because you don't need to know anything about MBTI to have a discussion on a forum without it turning into a bunch of straw mans and fallacies (possibly even works the opposite way). Is it really that hard for you to just deal with people's points and not their personal status e.g. age, education level, MBTI type etc?

And no as already mentioned numerous times I haven't abandoned the MBTI, you just read it that way.

I'm getting a lot of flak from several people here including you. Instead of actually pointing out the "fallacies" you see, you and others here just assert that the arguments I use are "straw mans" and "fallacies", when actually you just don't like the fact that I use MBTI to categorize people and sometimes judge what people say based on who they are. To me the person behind the post is what's actually most important. And on the internet, it's very difficult to establish this, so even if the argument is not bad, if it's coming from someone who doesn't have much knowledge/experience, I'm just not inclined to pay it much heed.

For example, reckful and I had a great discussion not long ago. I learned a great deal about typology from his posts. I was inclined to listen to him b/c I got the impression from the way he wrote that he actually had studied this field in great detail, and was not just a kid. I also knew that he had posted almost 30,000 times on INTJ forum. Anyone who's willing to post that much about a certain topic probably knows something worthwhile.

Sometimes what people say on here does resonate and seems valid, but oftentimes it's just crap...People expressing their opinions about matters that they don't have much knowledge of. You gotta sift the wheat from the chaff...

 

[Brontosaurie]

You happily oblige to style over substance.

 

[redbaron]

Again, it's comments like this that make me think you just don't really understand very much about typology yet seem to be very critical of it...

Here's what Jung actually said:

Yeah and it doesn't say what you say it said, you just read it that way.

Instead of actually pointing out the "fallacies" you see, you and others here just assert that the arguments I use are "straw mans" and "fallacies", when actually you just don't like the fact that I use MBTI to categorize people and sometimes judge what people say based on who they are

Even this is a straw man

I guess it's to be expected that someone whose career is teaching ESL wouldn't be able to hold a proper discussion beyond basic grammar and syntax though.

 

[Inquisitor]

Yeah and it doesn't say what you say it said, you just read it that way.



Even this is a straw man

I guess it's to be expected that someone whose career is teaching ESL wouldn't be able to hold a proper discussion beyond basic grammar and syntax though.

Yeah...just as I thought...bye redbaron

 

[redbaron]

Hey I'm just dismissing you based on completely irrelevant personal details like you do to others.

Y u no plai no more?

 

[onesteptwostep]

This thread is another perfect example of how people can't see in other's perspectives lol

 

[redbaron]

That post is another perfect example of how redundant your existence is lol

 

[onesteptwostep]

I wonder what that even means

 

[The Gopher]

I wonder what that even means

You would know if you could see his perspective.

 

[emmabobary]

You would know if you could see his perspective.

Siggieously??

 

[onesteptwostep]

Ohh you got me there gopher, you got me there.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

This thread is another perfect example of how people can't see in other's perspectives lol

Now, lookie here, someone pretends to forget what drama they were involved in previously.

Or is it the ultimate defense from reality? Heh, lol, heaven forbid right?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Hmm I didn't think of that as drama, it was more like an interesting discussion to me

 

[onesteptwostep]

Sure

 

[redbaron]

Hey this thread isn't in the arena?! I've been arena'ing in the lounge.

 

[Reluctantly]

Who are all of you people?

 

[Animekitty]

Who are all of you people?

https://youtu.be/UNPP0IND5u8

 

[Hadoblado]

I'd have put it in the arena but thought it would be poor form to make it no-holds-barred when the nature of the contention begs ironic aggression. That'd be an abuse of power.