# Ti and conspiracy theories



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Do you believe there is a correlation between Ti users (especially Dominant ones) and believing in conspiracy theories? Because I've met quite a few of them that are definitely into it. And the thing I often hear is for example _''Such and such believes the flat Earth shit. I know what you're thinking, but he's actually a really smart guy, I don't get it.''_

My theory behind it is that TP types are so desperate to be smarter than the average person, that if everyone accepts a fact, they will vehemently argue against it because otherwise how is their intellect supposed to rise above the crowd? But I find it very similar to strong Fi's insistence on doing something self-destructive just because they hate being told what to do and want to go against the crowd.

Thoughts?


----------



## Highway Nights (Nov 26, 2014)

Not really

Seems to be Ni dominants mostly. Some INxPs.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

No I think conspiracy theories cater more to the introvert perceiving crowd. I don't agree that attitude changes between perception and judgment, but even in MBTI terms, having extraverted perception means you accept contrary information more easily and usually that leads to being less susceptible to such things. That being said, because of all the mess that MBTI and function stacks are, a lot of TPs who identify with Ti are actually TJs, as they are primarily subjectively driven, contrary to real TPs.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

My ISTP ex-husband was very confused by a friend of his who had a lot of these sorts of conspiracy theories. He wanted to figure out how a person could come to believe things that are so obviously untrue, like about the reptilians (that's one I remember him being especially confused about).

My INTP @hornpipe2 is so put off by conspiracy theories that he even believes the single-bullet theory with JFK. I don't say that to say that I disbelieve, but it seems as though there is quite a bit missing when it comes to explaining that. I haven't really come up with a solid "belief" about what I think happened. 

I'm primarily attracted to Ti dominants and I'm trying to think of anyone else who got into that and I can't remember a single one.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

It's not Ti. It's Ni and Ne.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Duo said:


> It's not Ti. It's Ni and Ne.


Do you think it's Ni in the dominant position or perhaps Ni in the inferior position? I can see it going either way, really, in theory. But that's me making it up in my mind. I don't know how that translates to reality.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

brightflashes said:


> Do you think it's Ni in the dominant position or perhaps Ni in the inferior position? I can see it going either way, really, in theory. But that's me making it up in my mind. I don't know how that translates to reality.


Either will do.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

brightflashes said:


> Do you think it's Ni in the dominant position or perhaps Ni in the inferior position? I can see it going either way, really, in theory. But that's me making it up in my mind. I don't know how that translates to reality.


Sorry for hijacking this.

I would think it's dom or secondary function and Ni slightly more likely as it should take such things more personally. I think it is that way, because lower functions are generally meaningless. We only keep talking about them due to the fact, that some of them aren't equal to other weak functions, but they don't make us what we are. Even Jung himself mostly focused on preference and he understood that as having specific function dominating. His explanation of other functions after dom were half assed and he most likely didn't really think of them as being important. Nardi in his book mostly focused on dominant function as what makes us excited and alive. If someone would feel dead inside, why would they read conspiration theories? They are lengthy and mostly text based, so only motivated people would read them and unmotivated person very likely would brush them off as bullshit and in case of argument, they would only reply with opposition and hope that their suffering ends ASAP.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

I have to disagree with this being an Ni or Ne thing. I think they would be more interested in the WHY people make up and believe conspiracy theories, similar to my initial post. 

Ti is the _''rebellious thinker''_ function IMO, the one that has to go opposite the crowd on logical matters to validate itself.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Stevester said:


> Ti is the _''rebellious thinker''_ function IMO, the one that has to go opposite the crowd on logical matters to validate itself.


Also, to this point, their inferior Fe would make them be more likely to mistrust conventional opinion though I do understand that would probably have more to do with Te and Se when it comes to the "facts" and all.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

I think Ti (this is a general statement it does not apply to all)likes to be different but for sincere reasons. Creativity is sincere

Some of your statements true though OP. Some good points


----------



## hornpipe2 (Nov 3, 2015)

Ti dominant here and like @brightflashes says - I really can't stand conspiracy theories.



Stevester said:


> My theory behind it is that TP types are so desperate to be smarter than the average person, that if everyone accepts a fact, they will vehemently argue against it because otherwise how is their intellect supposed to rise above the crowd?


lol wut


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

brightflashes said:


> Also, to this point, their inferior Fe would make them be more likely to mistrust conventional opinion


Exactly. To me, Inferior Fe is the ultimate _''not joining the rest of you on this''_ function. 

This is something I brought up many times on this forum, but I think people constantly confuse IP stereotypes for INxJs. That whole rebellious person/doesn't fit in/goes against the crowd/feels misunderstood/hates people etc. has always fit the IP mold to me(They're not ALL like that obviously.) But for some reason people always attribute that to INxJs. Probably because they are the rarest and most romanticized type, so why not add a loner/contrarian/doesn't fit into society attributes on top of them to romanticize them even more? When in actuality INxJs are Fe/Te aux users therefore usually know how to fit in and manage crowds. 

This is especially rampant in the _''Type me forum''_ where all unconventional/rebellious/shock type musicians are immediately type as INFJ without a second thought for some reason? Because we all know a typical INFJ's reason to be is to challenge authority, be weird and piss on people. Definitely a key part of their profile. They are Fe users, but they do not obey the lame-ass laws of Fe, oh no Sir! 

I digressed a bit from my original post, but you get my point...


----------



## Hunter1611 (Apr 27, 2010)

> This is something I brought up many times on this forum, but I think people constantly confuse IP stereotypes for INxJs.


I agree with this completely. I've seen a lot of INFP mistyped as INFJs. Fi doms are very concerned with individuality, which usually results in them feeling a need to assert their identity in some way. This can easily lead to being rebellious/unconventional and etc. Ti doms, like myself... Well, while there are small Fe-type things that I can be insecure about, oftentimes I'm rolling my eyes at convention and ignoring it. I'm not interested in openly fighting against anything, but I feel this urge to refuse to yield to social rules that I've deemed stupid or pointless because I don't like being controlled. I just want to be left alone to do what I want to do.

INTJs are known for being somewhat unconventional, and on a logical level it makes sense. Te asserting it's own definition of structure, Fi being concerned primarily with self values, and Ni/Se being less concerned with following established rules/guidelines. However, the INFJs are usually more sensitive to the social environment (Fe), so while I have known NFJs to find loopholes and subtly ignore things serve no purpose and that make no sense (Ni-Ti), the INFJs specifically are less likely to do this openly, so as not to cause unnecessary conflict (Fe). The legitimate INFJ I know in real life is like this.


----------



## Jaune (Jul 11, 2013)

brightflashes said:


> My ISTP ex-husband was very confused by a friend of his who had a lot of these sorts of conspiracy theories. He wanted to figure out how a person could come to believe things that are so obviously untrue, like about the reptilians (that's one I remember him being especially confused about).


Yeah, thinking about ISTPs I know, I don't think any of them are into conspiracies, and approach that kind of stuff with the attitude of your ex-husband. I can relate as well.
I don't think it's very Se at all, even if coupled with Ti.

I have seen it in xNTPs, though. Not all I've met, but a few.
Could be a combination of Ti + Ne.


----------



## Hunter1611 (Apr 27, 2010)

> Yeah, thinking about ISTPs I know, I don't think any of them are into conspiracies, and approach that kind of stuff with the attitude of your ex-husband. I can relate as well.
> I don't think it's very Se at all, even if coupled with Ti.
> 
> I have seen it in xNTPs, though. Not all I've met, but a few.
> Could be a combination of Ti + Ne.


I have seen it in an ENFP and an INTP. I think Ne (depending on how mature, how well utilized and probably a multitude of other factors) is prone to paranoia, because it considers all of the possibilities, whether or not realistic. That stereotypical conspiracy board with all of the pictures and strings connecting is very Ti-Ne.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

I don't see STPs as the conspiracy theory type at all. It's in the second word -- it's a _theory_. And of the worst kind, because what on earth is a theory that by definition _can't be disproven_ good for? It's not even useful in understanding things better, nevermind helpful for any practical matters. Is there a global conspiracy to keep aliens secret? I dunno, but who cares -- the answer doesn't earn me money, advances my career, or solves any of the countless other objectives in my life. It's a waste of time and energy to even think about it.

TPs surely would be _independent_ thinkers. That could be a necessary (but not sufficient) requirement to believe in non-mainstream ideas, but apart from that, I don't see much to go on, here. Dubious.


----------



## Aridela (Mar 14, 2015)

I think I know where you're coming from. 

The Ti-doms(+aux) I know, especially XNTPs will _entertain_ the possibility that any and all (conspiracy) theories may have some merit/hold some truth. 

I don't necessarily see an overabundance of IPs being into conspiracy theories. 

If anything I would associate it with Ne + Te lower in one's stack. Which makes NFPs the most likely supporters of conspiracy theories in my book.


----------



## Folsom (Jun 20, 2018)

Why would we associate with groups of people who everyone thinks are stupid in order to appear smarter? 
We would just look equally stupid.

It seems more likely that we would accept ideas which are more strange and uncommon than the very common conspiracy theories floating around now.

Unless you consider strange and unproven ideas to be conspiracy theories? But that basically includes every Human on the planet.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Northern Lights said:


> I don't see STPs as the conspiracy theory type at all. It's in the second word -- it's a _theory_.


I'll take some of your word for it since you are that type, but ISTPs have child Ni so I think they sometimes get off on envisioning a different scenario than what reality presents (especially if they weren't there and have to rely on the media's report of events). If all the logical pieces fit, then it's a go. That's why every ISTP I know is simply convinced 9/11 was an inside job: all the evidence is there, there is barely a loophole.


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

brightflashes said:


> :shocked:


Scary, isn't it? You wouldn't understand, as an INTJ.  I've made several enemigas on here, I'm pretty sure, who think I am utterly déclassé.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

AnneM said:


> Scary, isn't it? You wouldn't understand, as an INTJ.  I've made several enemigas on here, I'm pretty sure, who think I am utterly déclassé.


lol. It's just ... if you cry, I might cry too because I like you, too. Please don't cry!


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

brightflashes said:


> lol. It's just ... if you cry, I might cry too because I like you, too. Please don't cry!


Nah, I'm just _melodramatic_ and all that shit. No crying, but you have made me really happy. :heart:


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

I'm really sorry this is totally unrelated @brightflashes but everytime I see your name it reminds me of "hot flushes/flashes". 
.......


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Dissymetry said:


> Sorry to disappoint but I do not really have an opinion on which types might be more prone to believing in conspiracy theories, @brightflashes.
> 
> In theory it makes more sense (to me) that all of the types that would be prone to this type of thing for a variety of reasons but for the sake of simplicity I will only speak about reasons that relate directly to the types.
> 
> ...


You know as Fi dom, I do not believe in things just because everybody else does. I see how it relates to the real world, and see the patterns in things then connect the dots together. So I also think it's probably to do more with personal experiences also. I do not believe every single conspiracy theory. Also sometimes I like to look at both arguments then try to figure out which one fits with the current world (patterns) that I am observing. And yes it's probably more subjective than objective. Which is why you can have two people of the same "type" if you will, believing in totally different things.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Eroticarmin said:


> I'm really sorry this is totally unrelated @brightflashes but everytime I see your name it reminds me of "hot flushes/flashes".
> .......


lol. I came up with it in high school which was mumble-something years ago after my English Composition teacher talked about the writing process as having "flashes of brilliance". I liked the imagery but I couldn't figure out how to smash it into one nick, so I clumsily created brightflashes. I'm a creature of habit so that's been my nick like ... everywhere my whole life.

Thankfully I am also a recluse so all you'll find is me here and maybe some posts on a mostly-dead twitter account if you ever search heh.

Anyway, if it sounds childish, it's because it is. And I get a lot of comments about seizures, too.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

brightflashes said:


> lol. I came up with it in high school which was mumble-something years ago after my English Composition teacher talked about the writing process as having "flashes of brilliance". I liked the imagery but I couldn't figure out how to smash it into one nick, so I clumsily created brightflashes. I'm a creature of habit so that's been my nick like ... everywhere my whole life.
> 
> Thankfully I am also a recluse so all you'll find is me here and maybe some posts on a mostly-dead twitter account if you ever search heh.
> 
> Anyway, if it sounds childish, it's because it is. And I get a lot of comments about seizures, too.


Umm. Mebbe. I thought is was ... mebbe this:


* *


----------



## Catandroid (Jul 9, 2018)

No, this user name was picked because it has to do with bright flashes and strange vehicles that were on the road during Princess Diana's car crash.


Numerous people reported seeing flashes as the car headed into the tunnel where it would crash – flashes that were blamed for the crash itself. But the problem was that many people reported different flashes, at different times, from different places.


She's actually a killer bird.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Catandroid said:


> She's actually a killer bird.


hmm. Clever. I'll give you this: I won't deny it.


----------



## RandomDudeOnTheInternet (Mar 26, 2019)

Conspiracy theories are interesting and fun to play around with.

It's fun forming conspiracy theories and then telling it to people, making them cringe. However that's where the line is drawn. Most conspiracy theories are retarded. I would never believe in such baseless things like the earth being round or the royal family not being reptilian lizards, who are from Jupiter. 

People simply dumb sometimes. Jeez...


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

RandomDudeOnTheInternet said:


> Conspiracy theories are interesting and fun to play around with.
> 
> It's fun forming conspiracy theories and then telling it to people, making them cringe. However that's where the line is drawn. Most conspiracy theories are retarded. I would never believe in such baseless things like the earth being round or the royal family not being reptilian lizards, who are from Jupiter.
> 
> People simply dumb sometimes. Jeez...


You know there's more credible theories than THOSE. Like the 1% elite rule the world. How is that one stupid?


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

brightflashes said:


> hmm. Clever. I'll give you this: I won't deny it.


Do you perform satanic rituals at night? :laughing:


----------



## RandomDudeOnTheInternet (Mar 26, 2019)

Eroticarmin said:


> You know there's more credible theories than THOSE. Like the 1% elite rule the world. How is that one stupid?


Read the wording of my comment again. You missed something.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

RandomDudeOnTheInternet said:


> Read the wording of my comment again. You missed something.


Sorry you did say most.
My bad. Sorry.


----------



## RandomDudeOnTheInternet (Mar 26, 2019)

Eroticarmin said:


> Sorry you did say most.
> My bad. Sorry.


Lol, that's not what you missed. Ah, well I guess I'll explain my sarcasm. 

"Most conspiracy theories are retarded. I would _never_ believe in such baseless things like the_ earth being round_ or the royal family_ not _being reptilian lizards, who are from Jupiter. " - Me.

I'm saying conspiracy theories are retarded. Then I'm saying I believe in a ridiculous conspiracy theory acting as if it's fact, which is the irony.

Rip my snarky one liner.

Oh and the elite ruling the world is very plausible. It's not as high as 1 percent. The Rothschild and Rockefeller family control countries, because countries are in debt towards them.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Eroticarmin said:


> Do you perform satanic rituals at night? :laughing:


omg. This is just creepy now. Where are you guys getting your information? I demand to know!


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

brightflashes said:


> omg. This is just creepy now. Where are you guys getting your information? I demand to know!


It wasn't hard to figure out. :laughing::laughing:


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

RandomDudeOnTheInternet said:


> Lol, that's not what you missed. Ah, well I guess I'll explain my sarcasm.
> 
> "Most conspiracy theories are retarded. I would _never_ believe in such baseless things like the_ earth being round_ or the royal family_ not _being reptilian lizards, who are from Jupiter. " - Me.
> 
> ...


Oh right. I usually scim read sometimes on here. I see now.


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

Does this need to happen on here? I still kinda believe in the lizard aliens.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Conspiracies aren't apart of my normal direction in thinking, though in a reaction to something negative (especially where the ego feels "negated" in some way), and the Senex complex constellates, which carries the "6th place function, which for me is Ni, then a quick rash conspiratorial link of the data may come up.

I "know" this probably isn't true (Ne realizes it is at most a possibility, and there could be other possibilities), but it 'feels good' to "vent" off frustration, mentally, by running these ideas off in my head.
I would say healthy mature NJ's will be able to better channel their Ni perceptions so that they don't become wild conspiracies. So a lot of conspiracy theories may be from unhealthy NJ's, and other types may go along with them if their Shadows are triggered.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

tiger greengrass said:


> Do you not agree that if it is a "secret plot" (As found in the dictionary definition) then it is going to be based on hunch and superstition?


No, I don't agree with that.



> Also the fact that the definition is so specific means it is predictable.


It does not.



> Those are just the obvious, and that's 2 out of 3 right there.


Please stop and think on the things that you consider to be "obvious." The world does not spin based on your worldview.


----------



## Queen Talia (Aug 21, 2017)

Daeva said:


> No, I don't agree with that.
> 
> 
> It does not.
> ...


"It does not" is not an argument, you're gonna need to elaborate


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

tiger greengrass said:


> Something not based on reasoned conjecture can still be correct.
> Like if I didn't know anything about the ocean and I had a hunch that I shouldn't drink the water, I'd be correct but there'd be no reasonable conjecture, because I didn't know anything about the ocean


Do the research. Many past and current conspiracy theories apply great "reasoned conjecture."


----------



## Queen Talia (Aug 21, 2017)

Daeva said:


> Do the research. Many past and current conspiracy theories apply great "reasoned conjecture."


Give an example, you need to back your claims up.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

tiger greengrass said:


> "It does not" is not an argument, you're gonna need to elaborate


That's where you're wrong. You made the claim, you get to elaborate.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

tiger greengrass said:


> Give an example, you need to back your claims up.


Again, you are wrong on this.

Both you and @raskol have so far failed to establish that conspiracy theories require a lack of reasoned conjecture.


----------



## Queen Talia (Aug 21, 2017)

Daeva said:


> That's where you're wrong. You made the claim, you get to elaborate.


How am I wrong? You just keep saying "you're wrong" with no substance.


----------



## Queen Talia (Aug 21, 2017)

Daeva said:


> Again, you are wrong on this.
> 
> Both you and @raskol have so far failed to establish that conspiracy theories require a lack of reasoned conjecture.


It's like atheism, you're the one saying there IS something so you need to show it existing.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

tiger greengrass said:


> How am I wrong? You just keep saying "you're wrong" with no substance.





tiger greengrass said:


> It's like atheism, you're the one saying there IS something so you need to show it existing.


The lack of substance is all yours and I'm having none of it. _What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence_.


----------



## Queen Talia (Aug 21, 2017)

Daeva said:


> The lack of substance is all yours and I'm having none of it. _What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence_.


"I'm having none of it" wow how edgy.
Also, I'm still waiting for you to show a conspiracy theory that has reasoned conjecture and wasn't based on a hunch.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

tiger greengrass said:


> "I'm having none of it" wow how edgy.
> Also, I'm still waiting for you to show a conspiracy theory that has reasoned conjecture and wasn't based on a hunch.


The nature of the argument is such that I am neutral on the relation between 'conspiracy theory' and 'reasoned conjecture.' Whether is is present or not is irrelevant to a theory being about conspiracy or not.

What @raskol claims is that 'reasoned conjecture' cannot be part of 'conspiracy theory.' This is his basis for him disagreeing with my original statement around Ti. He made other claims as well, such as 'conspiracy theory' being its own form of consensus. None of this is a requirement for something to be considered a 'conspiracy theory.'

The "positive claim" is @raskol 's. He claims that a 'conspiracy theory' is void of 'reasoned conjecture.' He hasn't demonstrated this, and "the book" (dictionary) also does not back him up.

--

Then you come in. Calling me "edgy" after I refused your aggressive demands on something that is besides the point of the issue at hand. I decline arguing with you any further.


----------



## Queen Talia (Aug 21, 2017)

Daeva said:


> The nature of the argument is such that I am neutral on the relation between 'conspiracy theory' and 'reasoned conjecture.' Whether is is present or not is irrelevant to a theory being about conspiracy or not.
> 
> What @raskol claims is that 'reasoned conjecture' cannot be part of 'conspiracy theory.' This is his basis for him disagreeing with my original statement around Ti. He made other claims as well, such as 'conspiracy theory' being its own form of consensus. None of this is a requirement for something to be considered a 'conspiracy theory.'
> 
> ...


My aggressive demands? I wasn't aggressive at any point in this debate.
The dictionary definition fully backs up raskol


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

Daeva said:


> "To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And, at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between, plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big 'thing.' This is truth to me."
> 
> The irony.


I _know_, right?! Tell me about it!


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

AnneM said:


> I _know_, right?! Tell me about it!


Look, are you going to post seriously or not? My original response to you was to highlight the contrast of the serious dedication to truth with the post where you gave a silly adoration for style over content.

Now that the _true _irony has been made clear, if you object to my original claim, feel free to comment on it. One word of caution, however: I care about the truth.


----------



## Queen Talia (Aug 21, 2017)

Daeva said:


> Look, are you going to post seriously or not? My original response to you was to highlight the contrast of the serious dedication to truth with the post where you gave a silly adoration for style over content.
> 
> Now that the _true _irony has been made clear, if you object to my original claim, feel free to comment on it. One word of caution, however: I care about the truth.


Are you always this rude? Rudeness does not equal truth.


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

Daeva said:


> Look, are you going to post seriously or not? My original response to you was to highlight the contrast of the serious dedication to truth with the post where you gave a silly adoration for style over content.
> 
> Now that the _true _irony has been made clear, if you object to my original claim, feel free to comment on it. One word of caution, however: I care about the truth.


My friend, I have been IN it. I lived and breathed conspiracy theories for FUCKING years. I read every book. I studied everything. I went around spewing that shit to people night and day. And you know what? Something inside me just BROKE. I really don't care anymore, and there's no going back. I'll take style over content any day, these days. I have no mission in life except to enjoy being alive. The truth? Which truth? I think you, and everyone else obsessed with this stuff, is missing out on the Absolute Truth. If you enjoy it, proceed. If it ever starts to make you thoroughly miserable as it did me, allow yourself to let it go.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

tiger greengrass said:


> Are you always this rude? Rudeness does not equal truth.





tiger greengrass said:


> "I'm having none of it" wow how edgy.


Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

AnneM said:


> My friend, I have been IN it. I lived and breathed conspiracy theories for FUCKING years. I read every book. I studied everything. I went around spewing that shit to people night and day. And you know what? Something inside me just BROKE. I really don't care anymore, and there's no going back. I'll take style over content any day, these days. I have no mission in life except to enjoy being alive. The truth? Which truth? I think you, and everyone else obsessed with this stuff, is missing out on the Absolute Truth. If you enjoy it, proceed. If it ever starts to make you thoroughly miserable as it did me, allow yourself to let it go.


What "stuff" am I "obsessed" with? Please do tell. I have yet to claim to actually believe a single conspiracy theory, yet here you go.

Again, if you have something to actually critique about my original points in regard to _Ti and conspiracy theories_ (note the title of this thread), then please do so. However, I have nothing to do with your personal stories from having "lived and breathed conspiracy theories." My point is on its relation to Ti and *that's it*.


----------



## Queen Talia (Aug 21, 2017)

Daeva said:


> Pot, meet kettle.


Not hypocritical in the slightest. I wasn't being rude.


----------



## AnneM (May 29, 2019)

Daeva said:


> What "stuff" am I "obsessed" with? Please do tell. I have yet to claim to actually believe a single conspiracy theory, yet here you go.
> 
> Again, if you have something to actually critique about my original points in regard to _Ti and conspiracy theories_ (note the title of this thread), then please do so. However, I have nothing to do with your personal stories from having "lived and breathed conspiracy theories." My point is on its relation to Ti and *that's it*.


Look, I'm just here for the free dish of germ-ridden peanuts. I just wanted to comment on @raskol 's posts because I adore his writing style. Is that OK with you? Want to give me a citation? I don't like real arguments on here-- vulnerable Te and all. I'm just passing thru. Pray, do not detain me. I have nothing of substance to add to this thread.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Northern Lights said:


> I dunno. I said STPs. And the statement is expanded for context in the next two sentences:
> 
> I like my theories just fine, provided I can use them for something. On the other hand, a theory that I have no chance of refuting, because every attempt to do so is by definition proving its conspiracy nature, and that in the first place only exists to make sense of people's fears and lack of understanding, is a pointless exercise in academic waffling (at best) or actively harmful spreading of misinformation (at worst). The only way to possibly be interested in that is if you care about theories for their own sake, and that is the precise difference between (in particular) ISTPs and INTPs.
> 
> (Which is not to place my fellow NTP thinkers in the conspiracy camp, mostly for the reason @*raskol* laid out -- but keeping in mind the usual problems with generalisations, I can at least imagine them being _interested in discussing_ it, as opposed to my blank stare of incomprehesion at this ginormous waste of time -- or, to invert @*Nissa Nissa*: "... it's an interesting topic" <-- No, it's _not_.)


I disagree with the way that you distinguish INTP from ISTP. Ti is in it for the 'theories for their own sake.' Se isn't particularly about the use of something, that would be the terrain of Je.

I'm finding that you, and others in this thread, attribute many qualities to the concept of 'conspiracy theory' that aren't required to fulfill the criteria of something to be considered a conspiracy theory.

I am particularly pointing to what you said here:


> a theory that I have no chance of refuting, because every attempt to do so is by definition proving its conspiracy nature, and that in the first place only exists to make sense of people's fears and lack of understanding, is a pointless exercise in academic waffling (at best) or actively harmful spreading of misinformation (at worst).


Why is refuting a conspiracy theory _by definition proving its conspiracy nature_? 
You also assume that conspiracy theories exist to _make sense of people's fears and lack of understanding_. Again, this is not a requisite of what constitutes a conspiracy theory.



> Seeing the last pages of discussion, however, I have a hunch these clarifications were wasted. Oh well ...


May I ask why?


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

tiger greengrass said:


> Idk, the only people I've seen do that were SFs


Yeah, I can see it as a sign of bad Ni too, wish I could remember what the actual thing was, it seems relevant :laughing:


----------



## Queen Talia (Aug 21, 2017)

Nissa Nissa said:


> Yeah, I can see it as a sign of bad Ni too, wish I could remember what the actual thing was, it seems relevant :laughing:


I mean it does seem very dumb to do it imo. I see how doing it plays out and it never plays out well.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

My point is that I think a general sign of a conspiracy theory (vs other theory like atomic theory or whatever) is seeing things as signs when they are not, over-assigning meaning to certain things, I don't know if that's related to Ni or really to bad Te (not knowing how to prioritize data)


----------



## Brasswood (Oct 5, 2018)

Duo said:


> It's not Ti. It's Ni and Ne.


Almost all serious conspiracy theorists I have ever known are XNTPs or XNFJs. Take my 2 cents for what it's worth.


----------



## Brasswood (Oct 5, 2018)

Gamine said:


> You're the one who's obsessed with being more insightful, seeing something no one else does.


Many original thinkers throughout history were INTPs, though--Galileo and Socrates, for instance. INTPs have always gone out on a limb and given their controversial opinions that were unwanted. INTPs are one of the most likely types to be a conspiracy theorist. I'm not saying that INTP types are smarter than everyone else, but they are certainly more open to ideas.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Daeva said:


> I disagree with the way that you distinguish INTP from ISTP. Ti is in it for the 'theories for their own sake.' Se isn't particularly about the use of something, that would be the terrain of Je.


I'm not in any way inclined to change your believes: feel free to disagree.

I'm also not going to argue definitions. Wiki does a fair job at giving one:


Wikipedia said:


> A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.


The latter in particular is a hallmark of a c.t., and a common behaviour exhibited by those who believe in it. If you disagree with that as well, see above.



Daeva said:


> May I ask why?


Certainly. I found the thread derailed with inane arguing about the topic's definition instead of the topic. This typically means any sort of discussion is pointless; if (as it evident) we can't agree on one, it definitely is.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Northern Lights said:


> I'm not in any way inclined to change your believes: feel free to disagree.


As the topic at hand pertains to to Ti specifically, I disagree strongly with your interpretation indeed. Your idea of "STP" suggest strong Je with little to no use of Ti. Not addressing this is a mistake and will lead to only more misinformation and mistypings.



Northern Lights said:


> I'm also not going to argue definitions. Wiki does a fair job at giving one:
> (...)
> The latter in particular is a hallmark of a c.t., and a common behaviour exhibited by those who believe in it. If you disagree with that as well, see above.


Right. Wikipedia... Not a fan of their definition: it suffers from much of the same false assumptions that you and others attribute to what should be a simple definition. Let's put it this way: the bias is too strong/obvious.


Besides, Wikipedia is not a serious source when hunting for good definitions. I'll take Merriam-Webster's any day over Wikipedia for that.



Northern Lights said:


> Certainly. I found the thread derailed with inane arguing about the topic's definition instead of the topic. This typically means any sort of discussion is pointless; if (as it evident) we can't agree on one, it definitely is.


As for the "derailment," if you can't even agree on the fundamentals of the discussion, then argument is pointless. You may see it as inane, but I see it as necessary before any real understanding and learning can take place. It's about building a case from the bottom up. Ti does this.
@raskol 's critique to my points were made from a place where he perceives a conspiracy theory to be far more specific than what I had in mind - he even quoted a Merriam-Webster definition that did not support his claims. Yet here you are agreeing with these claims based on a Wikipedia definition. This makes your commentary quite disingenuous.


----------



## raskol (Jul 7, 2019)

Daeva said:


> ... Wikipedia is not a serious source when hunting for good definitions. I'll take Merriam-Webster's any day over Wikipedia for that.


The wiki in question is comprehensive, allocating a series of resources to properly underscore what the term _conspiracy theory_ indicates. 

What strikes me as bizarre in this exchange is that I previously presented copypasta from Merriam-Webster, which appeared to have gone over your ahead. You see, as I have less than 15 posts, I can't embed the link (merriam-webster[dot]com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory). I was merely assuming due diligence on your behalf, as the terms we use require an objective framework, without which communication wouldn't be possible in the first place.

As presented continuously in this thread, the formation of a conspiracy theory comes down to hunches (intuition) and not logic, as the conspiracy theory by its very nature defies falsification, requiring a leap of faith. That doesn't mean that the conclusion is necessarily untrue, but that you can only arrive at it by suspending reason and trusting your intuition.

With that settled, days later, I'd welcome a presentation of a historical or contemporary example that you have in mind. If you can think of a case where a conspiracy theory constituted an instance of reasoned conjecture rather than unsubstantiated folly or paranoia, then now is the time to present your case.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

raskol said:


> With that settled, days later, I'd welcome a presentation of a historical or contemporary example that you have in mind. If you can think of a case where a conspiracy theory constituted an instance of reasoned conjecture rather than unsubstantiated folly or paranoia, then now is the time to present your case.


XD Knowing, of course, that such a theory then by definition wouldn't be _conspiracy_ theory. I see what you're doing.

I guess the fairest example would be the Kennedy assassination. Was it Oswald, or more than one shooter? But this suffers from that exact problem: You can make a halfway-decent case for the multiple shooter theory, hence it's _not_ a priori faith-based nonsense. Simply arguing that there was more than one shooter is not something I'd call a conspiracy theory. You present evidence and reasoning, and the truth is not entirely certain. I still don't really care, because it doesn't matter to me, but fair enough.

On the other hand, believing Kennedy's assassination was a plot of the CIA, the the military-industrial complex and/or Fidel Castro certainly is. And that up to 80% of the US population believe or believed there was some sort of cover-up shows two things: 1) There will be no one type (or function, if you're into that) that explains it, and 2) most people have a profound unease about things that have no meaning, randomness, the unknown, and make up answers. Welcome to 2 million years of religion. What else is new.


To actually contribute to the topic, though: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180925075108.htm



Link said:


> "Our results clearly showed that the strongest predictor of conspiracy belief was a constellation of personality characteristics collectively referred to as 'schizotypy,' Hart said.
> 
> The trait borrows its name from schizophrenia, but it does not imply a clinical diagnosis. Hart's study also showed that conspiracists had distinct cognitive tendencies: they were more likely than nonbelievers to judge nonsensical statements as profound (a tendency known as "BS receptivity").
> 
> ...


And that, as they say, is that.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

I think it's actually Ti inferior that's prone to create conspiracy theories.

That makes ENFJs and ESFJs most likely to be fond of conspiracy theories.
Because they have a weak access to Ti they can't make sense of a lot of things that happen around them - mainly impersonal things, like banking or space travel.
That makes them question motives and come up with weird solutions to them.

Out of the two ESFJs stop mostly at hearsays: _"have you heard that...?"_
But ENFJs take it a step further and believe in things that have solid reasoning otherwise - they just can't make it out.

I've heard otherwise smart ENFJs saying things that were exceptionally stupid - like fake Moon landing and such - and heard them making up things in their head that they deep down must have known were false but kept saying anyway.

So yeah, Ti makes up stuff, just not as a dominant function.

(but INTPs make a good candidate too for believing in false theories)

Anyway, that's my opinion.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Let's unpack this.



raskol said:


> The wiki in question is comprehensive, allocating a series of resources to properly underscore what the term _conspiracy theory_ indicates.


It is comprehensive, but that does not indicate accuracy. This links back to the Merriam-Webster definition:



> What strikes me as bizarre in this exchange is that I previously presented copypasta from Merriam-Webster, which appeared to have gone over your ahead. You see, as I have less than 15 posts, I can't embed the link (merriam-webster[dot]com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory). I was merely assuming due diligence on your behalf, as the terms we use require an objective framework, without which communication wouldn't be possible in the first place.


Here's the link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy theory

"which appeared to have gone over your head."

Not only did you never demonstrate the link between your claims and M-W's definition, you continue to AVOID doing so when asked. Instead you push away the responsibility of making such claims to begin with. And no, Wikipedia doesn't cut it, that is just laziness on your part and I expect better.



> As presented continuously in this thread, the formation of a conspiracy theory comes down to hunches (intuition) and not logic, as the conspiracy theory by its very nature defies falsification, requiring a leap of faith. That doesn't mean that the conclusion is necessarily untrue, but that you can only arrive at it by suspending reason and trusting your intuition.


Plenty of claims have been made, sure. But can you demonstrate their veracity?



> With that settled, days later, I'd welcome a presentation of a historical or contemporary example that you have in mind. If you can think of a case where a conspiracy theory constituted an instance of reasoned conjecture rather than unsubstantiated folly or paranoia, then now is the time to present your case.


"With that settled" - "now is the time"

You know well enough that none of this is "settled." You ask of me to present a case when it is _you _who makes these god-awful claims about conspiracy theories - and as such, it falls to you to demonstrate and defend your bold claims.

You claim the following:


raskol said:


> Yet *a conspiracy theory is a theory in name only*. It is primarily *a conclusion drawn in light of insufficient evidence and staggering confirmation bias*, often with *a very predictable and mythological origin* (NWO, ZOG, etc.). A coherent thinker would normally dismiss such material, rejecting *inferences drawn on hunches and superstitions*.
> 
> 
> Criticism of an established consensus does not mean that one is ready to embrace an entirely new *consensus (conspiracy theory)* with *a ready-made conclusion*.





raskol said:


> Every conspiracy theory that is brought forth is necessarily *tied to a greater web of preexisting mythology and bigoted tropes*, hence *their repetitive nature*. That is what separates the conspiracy theory from reasoned conjecture.




I highlighted your bold (hehe) claims. 

Now here's your quoted definition:



raskol said:


> We are nevertheless speaking of an objective term, so let's call on Merriam-Webster.
> *conspiracy theory* (noun)
> a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators


You explained nothing. None of your claims are supported by this - it's not even a close call.

For all it is to anyone, these claims of yours could have been pulled out of your arse. Your stance on this topic is absolutely worthless until you either drop these claims OR you demonstrate their supposed veracity.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Northern Lights said:


> To actually contribute to the topic, though: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180925075108.htm


At least link the actual paper...

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3176533



> And that, as they say, is that.


Not by a long shot:

"And yet, most people believe in at least one conspiracy theory (Miller, Saunders, and Farhart, 2016)."


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

@*raskol*



Daeva said:


> Your stance on this topic is absolutely worthless until you either drop these claims OR you demonstrate their supposed veracity.


It's been a week now and you have yet to answer the call to put your money where your mouth is. From the start of our argument you have been challenged on your claims, and time after time these challenges have been met with evasion. 

I accept that this argument is now over, as your absence (of both your person and proof of your claims) speaks volumes. I therefore dismiss your critique as insubstantial. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

jetser said:


> I think it's actually Ti inferior that's prone to create conspiracy theories.
> 
> That makes ENFJs and ESFJs most likely to be fond of conspiracy theories.


Inferior functions are a sore spot for people and thus, generally not fun.

I think the Tert function is the one this is like_ ''LOVE this stuff, but it's extremely hard to make it a life priority''_ and therefore specific types are prone to liking these kinds of things:


ExFPs: Business/Law studies/Leadership

ExTPs: Social gatherings/Including the most people possible in leisure activities

ESxJs: Astrology/esoteric/general _''quirky''_ things 

ENxJ: Embracing the lavish and finer things of life/High-adrenaline activities

ISxPs: *Conspiracy theories*/long term projects

INxPs: Geeking out on long established entertainment franchises

IxFJ: Science

IxTJ: music/art


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Stevester said:


> Inferior functions are a sore spot for people and thus, generally not fun.
> 
> I think the Tert function is the one this is like_ ''LOVE this stuff, but it's extremely hard to make it a life priority''_ and therefore specific types are prone to liking these kinds of things


Yep, I correct myself that it's usually Ti dom (usually INTP) who creates the theory, but it is the Ti inferior who likely believes it.

It's not about "fun". It's about being unable to handle a specific function required to check if that theory holds up or not.

Needless to say a Te would be able to see it through with more ease.

Therefore I doubt that ISFPs/ISTPs would be the one to believe in conspiracy theories.
Aside from the fact that they have vastly different judging functions they also have Se which is able to check if something is correct or not.

The types that _blindly_ believe anything that is not true are probably Intuitive ones or types with poor Ti/Te.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

All the intuitive are potentially deeply interested. The S in a more superficial way...

But seriously, which is naive enough to not mention the INTJ ...


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

My middle name is "Conspiracy Theorist" when I go into 5 mode.


----------



## morgandollar (Feb 21, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> No I think conspiracy theories cater more to the introvert perceiving crowd. I don't agree that attitude changes between perception and judgment, but even in MBTI terms, having extraverted perception means you accept contrary information more easily and usually that leads to being less susceptible to such things. That being said, because of all the mess that MBTI and function stacks are, a lot of TPs who identify with Ti are actually TJs, as they are primarily subjectively driven, contrary to real TPs.


Could you explain that? I identify strongly with Ti, what do you mean by "subjectively driven"? I'm interested. I don't think I'm really an INTJ but who knows lol.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

morgandollar said:


> Could you explain that? I identify strongly with Ti, what do you mean by "subjectively driven"? I'm interested. I don't think I'm really an INTJ but who knows lol.


Well, it's a big issue going back to how Jung originally defined all the terms and observations he made and how Myers later decided to mix things up. For Jung, introversion and extraversion are attitudes of adaptation, introversion being the one that's subject-driven and focused on having a defensive attitude against the world, to avoid changing oneself and favor changing the world to adapt to your standards instead. The attitude is something that exist separately from the functions, so the functions are not 8 but 4 and someone who favors introversion will have their perception and judgment both expressed in that attitude and similarly for extraversion which is the opposite. Myers kinda flipped things around and for the judging function, she defined that if you want to keep things under control externally, you are an extravert while that is basically the opposite for Jung's theory, which would be the introvert who does this. 

In the modern function system, Ti is supposedly independent thought but that's not at all what Jung's was about, he specifically addressed this at some point and explained that both Ti and Te can be like that, the difference is that Te is in positive relation to the external factors, as in, it will not abstract and nitpick from them to make its case to reinforce the subjective perspective but rather will change its own reasoning if the external factors demand it. In my experience, from people I know who are definitely extraverted perceivers (Ne,Se) their T follows Jung's 'TE' camp so their defensiveness when it comes to T is low, they tend to expose themselves to contrary information (or experiences) to change and adapt their reasoning, whereas TJs prefer to do the opposite, build on their perspectives and avoid others, especially if strong J.


----------

