# ENFP's and psychic ability: could personality types have more?



## topgun31 (Nov 23, 2010)

bluenlgy said:


> ANYTHING THAT PRETENDS to be science. By saying this you are presupposing that there's an ultimate authority in this world who has a final say in whether something is scientific or not. Funny this mentality sounds more religious to me than anything else.
> 
> Saying that pseudoscientific researches are all done by feelers with low intelligence is not only inaccurate and presumptuous, but also a little stupid considering the fact that you are on this forum. Please remember that MBTI theory itself was proposed by one of the most feeler scientists in the world, C.G Jung. It was for a very long time assumed to be pseudoscience by other scientists because it was purely based on observation and not on scientific evidence.
> 
> ...



"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, *unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness*" -Carl Sagan

1) There are NO authorities in science, only experts. By claiming something as pseudoscience, a scientific-minded person doesn't evoke authority. The person uses logic, experiments, and evidence. 

2) Distinguishing between what feels good and what is true is what brought (and continues to bring) humanity out of the dark ages. It was once intuitive to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, and that there were incubi and succubi roaming the night. Science isn't close-minded, but the scientific mindset does require BOTH *skepticism* (critical thinking) and *wonder *(open-mindedness, creativity).

3) It's not that I'm completely disproving the possibility of psychic ability; nor is it that I dislike it. If there is psychic ability, that would be a revolutionary breakthrough in neurocience. I would LOVE to be the person that finds scientific evidence for psychic ability. The reason I'm not supporting the possibility of psychic ability is that there's no scientific support for it, therefore one can't make the claim, with confidence, that psychic ability exists. In addition, the mere thought of it's possibility evokes strong emotions, highlighting the need for scientific evidence (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).


----------



## bluenlgy (Apr 27, 2011)

Kestrel said:


> 1. Carl Jung was an IN*T*P
> 2. I said 'tingly feelings', not 'feelers'; I should perhaps have clarified that as 'vague, general feelings that lead to vague, general notions with no basis in fact whatsoever, and that insult scientific method and research.'
> 3. Yes, that was worded strongly and reflects very ill of you. 'Retarded'? Really? Are you twelve?
> 4. Courtesy of dictionary.com:
> ...


1. Carl Jung was an IN*F*J. Here are three sources, I think the one by Keisey (an INTP by the way) is pretty authoritative

Overview - CelebrityTypes.com
Keirsey Temperament Website - Portrait of the Idealist® Counselor (INFJ)
About Carl Jung by C. George Boeree

2. Yes you really should have clarified, especially considering the fact this thread was started as a discussion about ENFP. I know that feeling is not important to an extreme thinker like you, but it's still not a good idea to be so clueless as to suggest something so damaging to all feelers.

3. Actually I'm just 11.5. How can you be accurate in your guess? It must be your intuition then, "a vague feeling", is it not? 

(joke aside, saying somebody is twelve just based on the use of a word is totally illogical)

4. Yeah I know Wikipedia must be your God. 

Though it's true there are con men who heartlessly exploit the gullible with their purported knowledge of a fake science, this does not mean all people who are involved in non mainstream researches are scammers. Like what Henry Kissinger said: "99% of the politicians give the other 10% a bad reputation." I personally am not involved in any such scientific or not scientific research, but I don't think you are justified in implying that no such research merits any consideration whatsoever because they are all done by stupid feelers. If you said my strongly worded statement reflected ill of me, how about your insult towards all the people who use a different function than yours?

You might take this argument up a level after reading this post or just ignore it. But no matter what you will do next, my suggestion to you still is the same: before you know absolutely every fact about a certain thing, it's better to keep an open mind. I don't discard psychic phenomena completely because the experiences of many people did seem to confirm their existence. 

* One of my NT friends was an atheist who completely rejected the idea of psychic experience. Yesterday his girlfriend told me that he was so afraid of ghost at night he had to read books on atheism to sleep. His case may not apply to you or anyone else who also distrusts such ideas, but what I mean by relating this is sometimes it helps to analyze your true fear for certain things.


----------



## bluenlgy (Apr 27, 2011)

topgun31 said:


> "Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, *unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness*" -Carl Sagan
> 
> 1) There are NO authorities in science, only experts. By claiming something as pseudoscience, a scientific-minded person doesn't evoke authority. The person uses logic, experiments, and evidence.
> 
> ...


Though we are in disagreement on certain thing, I actually want to thank you for your quote. What Carl Sagan said was very true.

Again, you might not have personally experienced psychic phenomenon, this doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people who did what to do. (It's not a controlling thing of ENTJ, is it?  I mean, no disrespect, I find it really cute. My ex was an ENTJ and I loved it every time she tried to control this or that so that she could "put me on the right track")

About your second point, I like what Einstein said: "All models are wrong, some are useful."


----------



## topgun31 (Nov 23, 2010)

bluenlgy said:


> Though we are in disagreement on certain thing, I actually want to thank you for your quote. What Carl Sagan said was very true.
> 
> Again, you might not have personally experienced psychic phenomenon, *this doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people who did what to do.* (It's not a controlling thing of ENTJ, is it?  I mean, no disrespect, I find it really cute. My ex was an ENTJ and I loved it every time she tried to control this or that so that she could "put me on the right track")
> 
> About your second point, I like what Einstein said: "All models are wrong, some are useful."


1) I'm not trying to control what you do. On the other hand, I understand the societal reprocussions of believing in something without scientific evidence. The imagination is a powerful, powerful, powerful thing. 

2) I am quite interested in hearing about your personal psychic phenomenon. If you don't mind, can you please elaborate (preferably, in detail)?


----------



## topgun31 (Nov 23, 2010)

bluenlgy said:


> 1. Carl Jung was an IN*F*J. Here are three sources, I think the one by Keisey (an INTP by the way) is pretty authoritative
> 
> Overview - CelebrityTypes.com
> Keirsey Temperament Website - Portrait of the Idealist® Counselor (INFJ)
> About Carl Jung by C. George Boeree


After much thought and research, I'd have to concur. INFJ with well-developed Ti. Though, I could be wrong.



bluenlgy said:


> 2. Yes you really should have clarified, especially considering the fact this thread was started as a discussion about ENFP. I know that feeling is not important to an extreme thinker like you, but it's still not a good idea to be so clueless as to suggest something so damaging to all feelers.


Assuming that the person is an extreme thinker AND that feelings arent' important to thingkers is a logical fallacy, a staw man to be exact. (borderline ad homenim)



bluenlgy said:


> 3. Actually I'm just 11.5. How can you be accurate in your guess? It must be your intuition then, "a vague feeling", is it not?
> 
> (joke aside, saying somebody is twelve just based on the use of a word is totally illogical)


Another logical fallacy. Countering an ad hominem with another ad hominem. 




bluenlgy said:


> 4. Yeah I know Wikipedia must be your God.
> 
> Though it's true there are con men who heartlessly exploit the gullible with their purported knowledge of a fake science, this does not mean all people who are involved in non mainstream researches are scammers. Like what Henry Kissinger said: "99% of the politicians give the other 10% a bad reputation." I personally am not involved in any such scientific or not scientific research, but I don't think you are justified in implying that no such research merits any consideration whatsoever because they are all done by stupid feelers. If you said my strongly worded statement reflected ill of me, how about your insult towards all the people who use a different function than yours?



Logical fallacies = weasel word (stupid feelers), straw man ("any consideration whatsoever), Irrelevant question (the last sentence)



bluenlgy said:


> before you know absolutely every fact about a certain thing, it's better to keep an open mind. I don't discard psychic phenomena completely because the experiences of many people did seem to confirm their existence.


This is exactly why someone shouldn't ASSUME that psychic phenomenon exists. It's better to keep an open mind to other possibilities besides psychic ability. What if is something neruo-psychological? What if it has to do with the way the brain finds meaningless patterns in random, unrelated events? What if the feeling of pyschic ability is caused by observational selection (counting the hits and not the misses). I'm not stating facts; I'm merely generating alternative hypotheses. 



bluenlgy said:


> * One of my NT friends was an atheist who completely rejected the idea of psychic experience. Yesterday his girlfriend told me that he was so afraid of ghost at night he had to read books on atheism to sleep. His case may not apply to you or anyone else who also distrusts such ideas, but what I mean by relating this is sometimes it helps to analyze your true fear for certain things.


Logical fallacy of small sample size/observational selection


----------

