# There is no difference in thinking.



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> No. In truly differentiated individuals that is certainly not true. Comparing Jung's function theory to horoscopes is a big offense that just shows you don't know wtf you are talking about pretty much.


I'm not that interested in "NO U" defences.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But it isn't Ti.......lol. This is why it is such a mess. I am actually applying empirical, scientific standards to MBTI. I am approaching it, like a natural scientist would. Saying no objective evidence exists to distinguish these things. I can go from Te to Ti, in a flash. Anybody can, and does.


Just because you can't be bothered to collect the evidence, doesn't mean it doesn't exists.


I find that Ti often is about what should be. E.g. XNTP often assumes that things that are logical are really going to happen, whereas I might agree that they should happen, but I conclude that they will therefore not happen because that's the way the world is.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Just because you can't be bothered to collect the evidence, doesn't mean it exists.
> 
> 
> I find that Ti often is about what should be. E.g. XNTP often assumes that things that are logical are really going to happen, whereas I might agree that they should happen, but I conclude that they will therefore not happen because that's the way the world is.


The thread started with refuting the standpoint of Ti-Te having something to do with psychology. So far there's been nothing but referrals to the tentative, speculative (as your later paragraph) implications of the Ti-Te dichotomy, and not the dichotomy's plausibility itself, and logical fallacies against that refuting. There's a reason MBTI isn't taken into consideration in academics.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Bricolage said:


> Since there are only two thinking processes per Jung, and since you can "see" Te thinking out loud, by deduction the other kind of thinking has to be introverted thinking. Anyway, on a forum both Te and Ti users convey their ideas via text, so you're only dealing with a finished product. Like I said before, Ti ~formal logic and Te ~empiricism. You often hear Ti users rail against "scientism" whereas XNTJ very seldom do that.


I rail against "scientism" *in private* because it leads to rejecting possibilities right from the start. Some things don't even get investigated and get dismissed out of hand, which isn't really scientific because you don't have evidence that they don't exist. Also, people can believe in whatever they want to believe in private, as long as they're not harming anyone.
*In public*, I rail against unfounded, unscientific assumptions for which there is no evidence. I wouldn't base my public life, work, etc. on something for which there is no evidence.
This INTJ = evil shape shifter


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Seph said:


> The thread started with refuting the standpoint of Ti-Te having something to do with psychology. So far there's been nothing but referrals to the tentative, speculative (as your later paragraph) implications of the Ti-Te dichotomy, and not the dichotomy's plausibility itself, and ad hocs against that refuting.


Sorry, I left out a "doesn't" in my post. Browser trouble.

My last paragraph isn't tentative and speculative, it's anecdotal evidence. If we collect tons of evidence, we should end up with some evidence. What the conclusions from that evidence will be, I can't tell (so yes, this part is speculative), but at least it's a start.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> My last paragraph isn't tentative and speculative, it's anecdotal evidence.


Go check definitions of "anecdote" and "evidence" before you waste more of your time practicing pseudoscience.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Seph said:


> Go check definitions of "anecdote" and "evidence" before you waste more of your time practicing pseudoscience.


I'm not wasting _my_ time practicing pseudoscience, it's _your_ time I'm wasting.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> I'm not wasting _my_ time practicing pseudoscience, it's _your_ time I'm wasting.


This is what I would call pure rambling. Go figure.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> INTP and INTJ sound the same for example.


uhh...they so do NOT sound the same


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Seph said:


> This is what I would call pure rambling. Go figure.


Do I care what you would call it?


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Do I care what you would call it?


Frankly I fail to see how your engagement on the matter refutes my standpoint or the fact your premises are pseudoscientific.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Seph said:


> Frankly I fail to see how your engagement on the matter refutes my standpoint or the fact your premises are pseudoscientific.


I never denied that my premises are pseudoscientific. I don't mind. I mainly use MBTI for 'personal consumption' and it works fine for me. Is it scientific? Probably not. Does it need to be? No, because I don't always need science as a cuddly blanket against the cruel world. It's just a model of personality.
However, I'd still argue that in order to say that something isn't real, you'd have actually start using scientific methods to prove/disprove it, rather than just shouting right from the start that it's not science. E.g. Dario Nardi has found some physical evidence of the cognitive functions. So, if you've got any arguments that show that his experiments aren't valid, that's OK. If you just want to say "It's not scientific because it isn't", well......


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> I never denied that my premises are pseudoscientific. I don't mind. I mainly use MBTI for 'personal consumption' and it works fine for me. Is it scientific? Probably not. Does it need to be? No, because I don't always need science as a cuddly blanket against the cruel world. It's just a model of personality.
> However, I'd still argue that in order to say that something isn't real, you'd have actually start using scientific methods to prove/disprove it, rather than just shouting right from the start that it's not science. E.g. Dario Nardi has found some physical evidence of the cognitive functions. So, if you've got any arguments that show that his experiments aren't valid, that's OK. If you just want to say "It's not scientific because it isn't", well......


I'd like you to introduce this unknown Dario, his work and "physical evidence" before going on claiming "I do say this is pseudoscience but actually it isn't".


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Seph said:


> I'd like you to introduce this unknown Dario, his work and "physical evidence" before going on claiming "I do say this is pseudoscience but actually it isn't".


You can google him. "Unknown"? That doesn't matter. Either his work can be replicated or it can't. Doesn't matter whether he's unknown or not.

Well, I guess I can't help you. Good night.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> You can google him. "Unknown"? That doesn't matter. Either his work can be replicated or it can't. Doesn't matter whether he's unknown or not.
> 
> Well, I guess I can't help you. Good night.


I'm not going to spend my time to gather backup for your - might I quote myself - speculations about psychology or about a nobody whos relevance in research of psychology is nonexistant, what are you thinking?


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Seph said:


> I'm not going to spend my time to gather backup for your - might I quote myself - speculations about psychology or about a nobody whos relevance in research of psychology is nonexistant, what are you thinking?


I'm thinking that you must be very scared. If you were so sure that your approach is correct, you would be able to expose yourself to pseudoscience and nobodies without such a strong reaction.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> I'm thinking that you must be very scared. If you were so sure that your approach is correct, you would be able to expose yourself to pseudoscience and nobodies without such a strong reaction.


...lolwut

(Break down the evidence: it's that simple).


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Seph said:


> ...lolwut
> 
> (Break down the evidence: it's that simple).


Do yourself. Google Dario Nardi. Why should I do your homework for you?


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Do yourself. Google Dario Nardi. Why should I do your homework for you?


Why there would be anything sensical to be derived from your empty rambling? Do you realise how oblivious you are about actual argumentative approach (speaking of homework)? It's getting clearer you're arguing and nagging for the sake of arguing and projecting your frustration on me.



ephemereality said:


> And I have zero interest in troll defenses.


What?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Seph said:


> I'm not that interested in "NO U" defences.


And I have zero interest in troll defenses.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

It's funny that someone brings up linguistics. Linguistics studies the formation of words and languages not how it's used by people, that's why it can't make a difference between Ti and Te. How Ti and Te use the words provided by language is a matter outside linguistics.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

Aya the Whaler said:


> It's funny that someone brings up linguistics. Linguistics studies the formation of words and languages not how it's used by people, that's why it can't make a difference between Ti and Te. How Ti and Te use the words provided by language is a matter outside linguistics.


The functions in themselves still don't stand since their operationalization doesn't correlate with reality, which takes us back to the philosophical background of Jung's work.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Seph said:


> The functions in themselves still don't stand since their operationalization doesn't correlate with reality, which takes us back to the philosophical background of Jung's work.


How my fiancée uses words and arguments is different from how I do it. He's an INTP, I'm an ENFP. Then again, you can argue that is just different backgrounds and people all think in different ways, though everyone has similar points, otherwise the creations of the personality type 'tropes' wouldn't be observed.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

Aya the Whaler said:


> How my fiancée uses words and arguments is different from how I do it. He's an INTP, I'm an ENFP. Then again, you can argue that is just different backgrounds and people all think in different ways, though everyone has similar points, otherwise the creations of the personality type 'tropes' wouldn't be observed.


Am I supposed to address this strawman of me implying cartoonic archetypes to be something plausible under scientific approach?


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Seph said:


> Am I supposed to address this strawman of me implying cartoonic archetypes to be something plausible under scientific approach?


Tropes are part of literature and literature imitates life. I don't know what your problem with that is.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

Aya the Whaler said:


> literature imitates life


More in our show of "offshooting, empty assertions". I'm not arguing about nature of representations in general, this is about how there's no reason to be convinced of MBTI giving a reliable perception of personalities.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Seph said:


> More in our show of "offshooting, empty assertions". I'm not arguing about nature of representations in general, this is about how there's no reason to be convinced of MBTI giving a reliable perception of personalities.


They're generalizations, of course not all of them fit everyone, but in a bigger picture they do fit people's personality.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

Aya the Whaler said:


> but in a bigger picture they do fit people's personality.


"Offshooting - empty - assertions". You're not even reading my posts, are you.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Seph said:


> The thread started with refuting the standpoint of Ti-Te having something to do with psychology. So far there's been nothing but referrals to the tentative, speculative (as your later paragraph) implications of the Ti-Te dichotomy, and not the dichotomy's plausibility itself, and logical fallacies against that refuting. There's a reason MBTI isn't taken into consideration in academics.


Exactly. My God. This is what happens when you go against dogma. They can't refute with facts, so they take it personal. This is closer to religion and politics. It is ideology. 

Let's apply Occam's razor to this scenario. There are two scenarios likely:

1. Bunch of people who read the anecdotes of some guy 100 years ago, have somehow figured out this great plethora of knowledge, from their basement, that science/neuroscience/cognitive science has totally ignored, and does not use.

2. Said people are talking out their ass. 

Seriously, Jung's work is totally based on anecdotes. Where was his statistical analysis? Where are the linguistic markers? The bio markers? Any marker, I can grab onto.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

Seph said:


> The functions ARE exaggerated archetypes: hence when trying to reduce and apply them to reality all you get is vague paintings that fits anywhere like a horoscope. All they define is themselves.


 The horoscope argument has never been demonstrated as accurate, as far as I can tell. For example, you can't take any serious description on the planet for Ti or Fe, and apply it to me in any meaningful or consistent way. There is *some* overlap in behaviour - an Si-user is still going to have *some* awareness that an external, objective sensory environment exists, otherwise they would be delusional and unable to function. An Fi-user will still be able to empathize, read body language and relate to people, otherwise they would be... once again... delusional and unable to function. A Ti-user will sometimes point to external systems when talking to an audience, otherwise they would have no comparative point of reference, and they would sound delusional and dysfunctional.

That doesn't mean we don't have preferences in how we process and relate. If, as a Te user, I *completely *depended on external systems and rules to make any decisions, well, I'd be an unthinking puppet. But it doesn't mean that I don't heavily prefer it as a way to build my understanding, and it doesn't mean there are many situations where I'm going to look more at sub-principles as opposed to general principles in order to solve problems. 

If a Ti-user depended entirely on internal programming and no flexibility with external reference points, well, they'd just be a robot without sentience. Doesn't mean they don't rely much more heavily on internal systems and a certain type of analysis that I don't even understand enough to explain - since I'm not a Ti-user. 

An Fe user has their own emotions, but they're still going navigate social situations based on group harmony. But if you were to say, for example, that an Fe user "has" Fi just because they feel their own emotions and have their own moral code, you'd be missing the point, way off the mark.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But again, the finished product of Dawkins and Sagan is largely the same. People tend to think, before they speak. They have fleshed out things. So where does that leave us? We have no idea what is going on in their heads. We judge what comes out of their mouths, or pen.


You would say that, as a user of Ti. 

I would say that I think before I speak when it comes to something personal, due to the fact I'm trying to protect my feelings, but that's Fi. If I'm trying to explain an impersonal concept, however, I do not -- I repeat, *do not* -- usually know everything I'm going to say, before saying it. I may have some idea of the direction or even the gist of the final conclusion, but I will take my audience along with me for the ride as I verbally lay out all the steps. I'm not just doing it for them, either.. I'm processing and learning as I go along, thinking out loud. I go back and revise if I must, and I'll bore you with that process as well. 

Because Te is my inferior function, I'm rather underdeveloped, and I can often lose people in my train of thought. I get so many blank stares, you have no idea. BUT learning about the functions has actually helped me understand how and why I think the way I do, and I make a conscious effort to better develop this function (I don't have thoughts like "I'm developing my Te right now", but I think "how can I lay this out in a way that is both thorough and coherent", while also trying to be more precise in my words, which is hard for me, clearly).


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

spectralsparrow said:


> You would say that, as a user of Ti.
> 
> I would say that I think before I speak when it comes to something personal, due to the fact I'm trying to protect my feelings, but that's Fi. If I'm trying to explain an impersonal concept, however, I do not -- I repeat, *do not* -- usually know everything I'm going to say, before saying it. I may have some idea of the direction or even the gist of the final conclusion, but I will take my audience along with me for the ride as I verbally lay out all the steps. I'm not just doing it for them, either.. I'm processing and learning as I go along, thinking out loud. I go back and revise if I must, and I'll bore you with that process as well.
> 
> Because Te is my inferior function, I'm rather underdeveloped, and I can often lose people in my train of thought. I get so many blank stares, you have no idea. BUT learning about the functions has actually helped me understand how and why I think the way I do, and I make a conscious effort to better develop this function (I don't have thoughts like "I'm developing my Te right now", but I think "how can I lay this out in a way that is both thorough and coherent", while also trying to be more precise in my words, which is hard for me, clearly).


I agree there is something to it, but I'm not gonna just accept this groupthink, that it is untouchable. There could be errors. Why does anybody who questions this shit, get people so riled up? You would think I just went on a Christian forum, and called Jesus an ass. I mean, the responses in this thread actually started, and continued with personal attacks on me. 

I mean, why are people getting so mad? Seriously. There is an emotional investment here. I actually just realized MBTI is a secular religion. An intellectual superstition, as Jung would call it. 

But with Ti and Dawkins and Sagan.... Ti focuses on the subjective right? Dawkins entire damn argument is based on the objective world, natural, outside world. He refutes God, by physically showing he has no place in the universe. Dawkins does not even have time to entertain subjective arguments about God. He isn't capable of even processing subjective arguments. He is an atheist creationist. He takes it all literally, just like literal Christians do. Which is ass backward from Jung, but totally in step with Sagan. Sagan and Dawkins LOATHE mysticism. It is subjective nonsense. Jung thinks mysticism has truth precisely because it is is subjective, Dawkins and Sagan think it is bullshit, because it subjective. Dawkins only attacks objective arguments. He would never tackle somebody like Kierkegaard or Jung.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Exactly. My God. This is what happens when you go against dogma. They can't refute with facts, so they take it personal. This is closer to religion and politics. It is ideology.
> 
> Let's apply Occam's razor to this scenario. There are two scenarios likely:
> 
> ...


That is sort of a misuse of Occam's razor. You also have your own fallacies here: False dichotomy,appeal to ignorance (works both ways, although you're right, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim), and that one where you selectively use emotionally-laden terms to predispose listeners to a particular judgement... I forget the name. DAMN IT, Spectralsparrow! 

Why do you keep saying things like "LINGUISTIC MARKER"? This has nothing to do with linguistics, unless I'm misunderstanding you entirely. 

No one here is claiming that MBTI is a science. You're right, the types don't exist as a completely demonstrable blueprint. It's a heuristic device that can help support larger principles and ideas. I agree that the general descriptions are often at risk of the Forer effect -- but I think that is *why* the functions are further broken down into more differentiated examples and ideas, in order to help reduce the "one size fits all" problem. Just because there are some issues with Jung's arguments and approaches, that doesn't mean that absolutely *nothing* he had to say was valuable or accurate. To assume so is another fallacy.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I agree there is something to it, but I'm not gonna just accept this groupthink, that it is untouchable. There could be errors. Why does anybody who questions this shit, get people so riled up? You would think I just went on a Christian forum, and called Jesus an ass. I mean, the responses in this thread actually started, and continued with personal attacks on me.
> 
> I mean, why are people getting so mad? Seriously. There is an emotional investment here. I actually just realized MBTI is a secular religion. An intellectual superstition, as Jung would call it.
> 
> But with Ti and Dawkins and Sagan.... Ti focuses on the subjective right? Dawkins entire damn argument is based on the objective world, natural, outside world. He refutes God, by physically showing he has no place in the universe. Dawkins does not even have time to entertain subjective arguments about God. He isn't capable of even processing subjective arguments. He is an atheist creationist. He takes it all literally, just like literal Christians do. Which is ass backward from Jung, but totally in step with Sagan. Sagan and Dawkins LOATHE mysticism. It is subjective nonsense. Jung thinks mysticism has truth precisely because it is is subjective, Dawkins and Sagan think it is bullshit, because it subjective. Dawkins only attacks objective arguments. He would never tackle somebody like Kierkegaard or Jung.


I don't know about other people here, but I'm not feeling very emotional about this. I'm not going to deny there is some emotional investment in the system for me, but that doesn't mean I'm totally derailed from reason. Having emotions is something humans do. I like categorizing shit and incorporating it into my worldview/value system, as that's also something humans do, but I'm open to revision and I'm a very logically capable person. Saying "you're just being too emotional" or "you cling to this like a religion" is false, and ad hominem.

Of COURSE there can be errors. Personally I don't take Jung at his word on this. But you're not saying "there might be some errors to the system", you're literally saying "there is no distinction between Te and Ti" and that's a very different claim. 

Now I can't speak much to Dawkins, as I hate him (I'm also atheist and involved in skeptics communities in my area - I'm kind of a black sheep in this regard), and haven't spent a ton of time observing him. But I think you're misusing "subjective" and "objective" here. Ti being subjective doesn't mean "basing everything on personal opinion, experience, and feeling". It has nothing to do with facts vs. not facts. It means referencing an internal model of reasoning, focused on sub-principles and sub-analysis. Te vs Ti is a matter of how facts are processed and conclusions are made, not a matter of whether or not objective facts can be used to come to a conclusion.

I do think that just as you say MBTI can be used as a secular religion, I would say that Dawkinism is used in the same way. But there's no use for ad hominem here, so let's stop that.

The fact you bring up Kierkegaard just really threw me off, and further leads me to believe that you may be misunderstanding the intention and value of certain schools or thought or types of analysis. I could be wrong, but... look at it this way. I'm not a Christian and I don't agree with Kierkegaard on everything, but holy crap, he was brilliant and fascinating and has plenty of valuable insight regardless, even if as a building block to greater understanding.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

Chained Divinity said:


> I'm relatively new here, so could you explain them to me? I'm curious and haven't had the chance to meet that many known INTPs or INTJs.


For precisely every three words an INTJ uses to convey a message, an INTP uses only one. This is a scientific facts.

Just kidding.

But I would say that INTPs tend to be very to-the-point whenever possible. When they speak, they seem to be summing up a conclusion they've already come to, translating the bottom line for the audience. An INTJ will tend to best figure out how to explain her conclusion as she goes, taking her audience along for the ride. The two types will often use different kinds of examples to demonstrate their points. INTJ will say "there's this observable fact and this observable fact, so you have to consider this thing about fact one and that other thing about fact two, and they tie together because of such and such, so in conclusion.... There". An INTP will be simply be like, "premise, premise, conclusion. There." 

That's an oversimplification, and there is variation based on the individual and the topic, etc etc etc. But I didn't want to get too much into stereotyped behaviours and qualitative personality traits, so I focused on how conversations _roughly _tend to go with these people.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@FearAndTrembling,

I only speak for myself, but it doesn't bother me that you question all these ideas.

What troubles me is that you seem upset. Often I find with anger, that the reason for it is because the individual can't, or refuses, to acknowledge a point of view that, if understood, would release them from the bondage of their frustration.

What happened?

Would it be easier if we spoke in private? People will defend their beliefs in a public place because they value them, and so people are going to attack what you are saying. I'm willing to listen, and hopefully I can help? Perhaps you have something to teach me as well.

I have an excellent track record when it comes to one-on-one communication. <3

If you'd like to try, we can talk any time. Just let me know.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Any marker, I can grab onto.


Check out Dario Nardi's work. He even emphasizes at the beginning that personality is just a model, but he has actually delved into neuroscience to see how the types and functions stack up.






The reality is that outside of Dario's EEG work, no one really has empirical evidence for the personality types. That's because before neuroscience, we had no way to find empirical evidence. 

However, lack of scientific evidence doesn't stop people from applying the theory to their lives and learning how to understand themselves and others more distinctly. I think most people who are deep into the theory (such as myself) understand that it's just theory at the end of the day - but we also realize that for it to work at all and create any sort of understanding, we have to ignore the fact that we can't easily put personality into a petri dish. 

So yes, there is going to be some supposing, some assuming, and a lot of discussing, but I know, for example, that the theories serve a purpose for me in understanding myself and others. In that sense, they don't need to be "correct" in every way - they just need to have value.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> An INTP can be a dogmatic empiricist too.


Eh, I'm not so sure about that 

A Ti type can be a scientist, sure. A Ti type can be empirical. But an empiricist? When it comes down to it all, no matter the approach, what a Ti type does will be serving subjective thinking purposes.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Eh, I'm not so sure about that
> 
> A Ti type can be a scientist, sure. A Ti type can be empirical. But an empiricist? When it comes down to it all, no matter the approach, what a Ti type does will be serving subjective thinking purposes.


You're basically saying Ti can't have a certain philosophy. This is my main gripe. I already gave Richard Dawkins. Supposed Ti dom. The entire field of natural sciences is empirical. How couldn't it be? This is why Jung and Freud's work has been thrown by the wayside, and guys like Piaget and Skinner are actually talked about. Guy made a good point, which I've been saying all along, this is NOT psychology, but philosophy of the mind. You will learn about Jung and Freud in psychology, the same way you will learn about Aristotle in astronomy. As a historical lesson of previous thought, that is no longer taken seriously. 

Things change that way. The entire field of mental phenomena used to be philosophy, because internal mental processes were unknown. Now, science has corralled it. Science is ever encroaching on philosophy.

When I speak of empiricism, I speak of the planned procedure of the scientific method, championed by Bacon. Based on physical experiment. That is the ultimate arbiter. If your ideas don't match up with the natural world, it is the theory that changes, not reality. Observation is king. As they say, many beautiful theories have been destroyed by ugly facts.

Ti/Te rests on so many fallacies, it is daunting to even reduce it to one. But I have, of course. It is the same fallacy applied to other pseudosciences, particularly psychology.

It is a just so story. Any explanation of some guy, doing this or that, and explaining it as Ti or Te, is a just so story. 


In science and philosophy, a *just-so story, also called an ad hoc fallacy, is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The pejorative[SUP][1][/SUP] nature of the expression is an implicit criticism that reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation. 
* 
That is exactly what is being done here. People see a human behavior, explain it and whatever. Whoever comes up with the cutest story wins. Chomsky put it best:
"You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."

Exactly, exactly. lol. And this is exactly what happens. Anybody can up with a story to explain a behavior, even contradictory ones. Doesn't matter. It's a free for all, because there are no actual facts to appeal to. 
But it runs into the same problem as any just so story.

A just so story may say, men like blonde women, because blonde women remind them of youth.

Let's break down this statement.

There are two claims:

1. men like blondes
2. men like blondes, because it reminds them of youth.

But then when you ask for evidence of this, they just give you evidence of 1. Men like blondes. But men liking blondes does not prove, that they like blondes because of the reason stated. That's the fallacy. That's the just so story. They try to sneak in both, without actually connecting them. Proving A, does not prove that A caused B. It just proves A.
Same thing happens with functions.
1. Sagan speaks like this.
2. Sagan speaks like this because of Te

Simply proving 1 is not adequate. I know how Sagan speaks. But nobody is proving that Te is the CAUSE. People just expect to prove 1, and swallow 2 with it. 1 is explained through evidence, 2 is explained through storytelling. I mean, biologists can't even get away with these stories, for phenotypes that actually exist. I mean, they can actually prove a phenotype exists, without actually explaining how it got there. That is the hard part. But for the MBTI community, IT IS THE SIMPLEST THING IN THE WORLD. And that, is why it isn't taken seriously. Because stories absolutely rule. 

So a biologist takes a concrete, indisputable fact. But doesn't go beyond it.

MBTI takes anecdotes, and just flies them to the moon. 

That is why I compared it to religion; tons of certainty, little evidence.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

The functions are categorical labels. Categories don't "cause" things as far as I can think of at the moment.

To be fair, although proving A does not prove that A causes B, it doesn't disprove B either.

Also, much of psychology does not have cause and effect proof even though scientific method was used to derive conclusions. It is mostly correlative.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

Bricolage said:


> Or an embryonic one dealing with complex psychological processes. MBTI isn't as clear-cut as botany because the former deals with hazy psychological processes and the latter with tangible phenomena.


All you've been doing in this thread is repeating how "MBTI is a realistic measure because it's a measure". Do you know what other contexts have such similar beings that require only their own affirmation? Religion.



ephemereality said:


> Who gives a fuck lol?


This, along with other similar bursts, show how much interest some people have in actual argumentation instead of repressing discussion.



LostFavor said:


> The reality is that outside of Dario's EEG work, no one really has empirical evidence for the personality types. That's because before neuroscience, we had no way to find empirical evidence.
> 
> However, lack of scientific evidence doesn't stop people from applying the theory to their lives and learning how to understand themselves and others more distinctly. I think most people who are deep into the theory (such as myself) understand that it's just theory at the end of the day - but we also realize that for it to work at all and create any sort of understanding, we have to ignore the fact that we can't easily put personality into a petri dish.
> 
> So yes, there is going to be some supposing, some assuming, and a lot of discussing, but I know, for example, that the theories serve a purpose for me in understanding myself and others. In that sense, they don't need to be "correct" in every way - they just need to have value.


In that case I see no reason why some have such a conviction to claim scientific authority when there's no basis for it. It should be alarming for people clinging into MBTI when such approaches are a big, big red flag about pseudoscience. Noone's denying your faith on this or that evidence will occur in time, just don't operate in a false belief that there's no need to fulfill scientific methods.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Seph said:


> All you've been doing in this thread is repeating how "MBTI is a realistic measure because it's a measure".


Is that all I've "been doing"? :laughing: And here I thought I was focusing on Ti/Te differences. The MBTI correlates with Big 5 factors fyi.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

Bricolage said:


> Is that all I've "been doing"? :laughing: And here I thought I was focusing on Ti/Te differences. The MBTI correlates with Big 5 factors fyi.


I'm not addressing Ti-Te differences for the simple reason of them not being plausible and thus being irrelevant to the thread. I'd wish you'd stay on the relevant issue too, that being the fact that MBTI doesn't stand in scientific evaluation. How come you still accept the argument "the measure affirms itself"?



> The MBTI correlates with Big 5 factors fyi.


This empty assertion is simply not true and goes in line with your other vague posts.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Seph said:


> I'm not addressing Ti-Te differences for the simple reason of them not being plausible and thus being irrelevant to the thread. I'd wish you'd stay on the relevant issue too, that being the fact that MBTI doesn't stand in scientific evaluation. How come you still accept the argument "the measure affirms itself"?
> 
> This empty assertion is simply not true and goes in line with your other vague posts.


I'm not sure if you're inattentive of the research or just a troll. Here's why you're wrong. 

Big Five[edit]McCrae and Costa[SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP] present correlations between the MBTI scales and the Big Five personality construct, which aims to organize the complete set of basic personality domains. The five personality characteristics are extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability (or neuroticism). The following study is based on the results from 267 men followed as part of a longitudinal study of aging. (Similar results were obtained with 201 women.)

 ExtraversionOpennessAgreeablenessConscientiousnessNeuroticismE-I*−0.74*0.03−0.030.080.16S-N0.10*0.72*0.04−0.15−0.06T-F0.190.02*0.44*−0.150.06J-P0.150.30−0.06*−0.49*0.11_The closer the number is to 1.0 or −1.0, the higher the degree of correlation._ 
These data suggest that the four MBTI scales are subsumed within the Big Five personality traits, but that the MBTI lacks a measure for emotional stability dimension of the Big Five (though the TDI, discussed above, has addressed that dimension). Emotional stability (or neuroticism) is a core domain predictive of depression and anxiety disorders. These correlations refer to the second letter shown, i.e. the table shows that I and P have negative correlation to extraversion and conscientiousness respectively, while F and N have positive correlation to agreeableness and openness respectively.
These findings led McCrae and Costa, the formulators of the Five Factor Model (a Big Five theory),[SUP][34][/SUP] to conclude, "correlational analyses showed that the four MBTI indices did measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of normal personality. The five-factor model provides an alternative basis for interpreting MBTI findings within a broader, more commonly shared conceptual framework." However, "there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types, instead, the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions."


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Seph said:


> In that case I see no reason why some have such a conviction to claim scientific authority when there's no basis for it. It should be alarming for people clinging into MBTI when such approaches are a big, big red flag about pseudoscience. Noone's denying your faith on this or that evidence will occur in time, just don't operate in a false belief that there's no need to fulfill scientific methods.


I take it this isn't an actual reply to me specifically? Cause I don't claim scientific authority at all. In fact, I don't even think that Dario does. He's just the first one to bring something concretely observable (brain monitoring) into the "cognitive functions/processes" equation. Which has a degree of usefulness and clarity that theory alone can never attain.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

Bricolage said:


> I'm not sure if you're inattentive of the research or just a troll. Here's why you're wrong.


Out of all the tentative predefined dimensions (still not being addressed), only two (I-E & S-N) get to the point of debate where to be evaluated of their correlability. With that level of correlation I don't see such debate going for the favour of neither the correlability or the dimensions themselves.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> I take it this isn't an actual reply to me specifically?


Indeed it isn't.



LostFavor said:


> Cause I don't claim scientific authority at all. In fact, I don't even think that Dario does. He's just the first one to bring something concretely observable (brain monitoring) into the "cognitive functions/processes" equation. Which has a degree of usefulness and clarity that theory alone can never attain.


It does have it's usefulness and provides clarity, yes. You see, "theory alone" isn't a theory without observations, it's a hypothesis: that's one of the ways scientific authority is being claimed unjustifiably. What's happening now at the point of the observations coming into the hypothesis is it's evaluation which should precede the embracing (I'm sorry for a lack of a better word) of the measure, not only follow the embracing as a means to keep up the hypothesis for the sake of it.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Seph said:


> Out of all the tentative predefined dimensions (still not being addressed), only two (I-E & S-N) get to the point of debate where to be evaluated of their correlability. With that level of correlation I don't see such debate going for the favour of neither the correlability or the dimensions themselves.


Since the factors actually correlate your previous implication that MBTI and Big 5 are unrelated was misinformed. The correlations on the I/E and S/N dimensions to Big 5 analogues are high and the F/T and P/J to Big 5 analogues are medium. Again, you're totally wrong on this. Back away from the keyboard.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Seph said:


> Out of all the tentative predefined dimensions (still not being addressed), only two (I-E & S-N) get to the point of debate where to be evaluated of their correlability. With that level of correlation I don't see such debate going for the favour of neither the correlability or the dimensions themselves.


Just read the conclusions from actual researchers above.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Seph said:


> Indeed it isn't.
> 
> It does have it's usefulness and provides clarity, yes. You see, "theory alone" isn't a theory without observations, it's a hypothesis: that's one of the ways scientific authority is being claimed unjustifiably. What's happening now at the point of the observations coming into the hypothesis is it's evaluation which should precede the embracing (I'm sorry for a lack of a better word) of the measure, not only follow the embracing as a means to keep up the hypothesis for the sake of it.


I think I follow you. Science is supposed to be, well... fuck it, I'll just quote the scientific method:


http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml said:


> Ask a Question
> Do Background Research
> Construct a Hypothesis
> Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
> ...


Hypotheses are also supposed to be falsifiable. Which, unfortunately, we're only just beginning to have the capability for when it comes to cognitive processes, by utilizing the EEG.

But yeah, I agree with you that much of the thinking surrounding all of this (excepting for the expert theorists) is not scientific at all. There's some pseudo-science in terms of "personal observations," but ultimately, none of us can claim scientific authority. Cause we're all starting from assumed premises that we have not proven with falsifiable data.

Then again, some people call psychology a "soft science" for a reason.


----------



## Seph (Aug 13, 2013)

[No message]


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Seph said:


> This, along with other similar bursts, show how much interest some people have in actual argumentation instead of repressing discussion.


You're just a troll so please tell me again why I should give you a piece of how I rationalize the theory. You're not fucking worth it.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Seph said:


> those figure are anything but high or medium.


That's false. Anything above .7 or below -.7 represents a large positive or negative correlation. Look at the chart again.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Vagueness is the hallmark, and lifeblood of a weak theory.


 I'm proposing an argument, not a theory. I don't see vagueness, I see clear distinctions that you refuse to acknowledge. 



> There are many definitions, but Jung basically said that Ti favors the subjective element of things. Jung is a perfect example of this. That is fine, to call Jung Ti. He fits that description. I can see that. But Jung is an individual.. Jung, for example, took an entirely different approach to religion, than Sagan or Dawkins. Dawkins is supposedly INTP. Sagan ENTJ. That also makes sense to me. But people think how they want to think... Dawkins is all about tearing stuff down, through ruthless empiricism. So is Sagan. Jung is all about building things up through subjectivity. But anybody can do any of these things.. So, to call it Ti, or Te, is wrong. It is situational. If you're an atheist, you would be best using Te. If, you're religious, you should go Ti, like Jung, because that is the only way it can be made true. Only subjectively. Basically, whether you use Ti or Te, depends on what you are arguing about, and what your position is. What best suits your position. For an intelligent person at least..


I'm wondering what the whole Dawkins/Sagan thing is so important to your argument. I don't think we disagree in principle. 

I mean, Jung put subjective issues in a subjective box, and objective ones in an objective. So he was both. 

Jung was a doctor and scientist. He had to use both. He was in the business of observing and describing _all _psychological types, not just his. Yes he leaned towards the subjective, but that did not preclude him from using the objective. Again, the Ti function represents a _preference_, not a limitation. 



> I actually think Jung got the causation wrong. He said that Ti and Te would always be in battle, because of inherent differences. He thinks it is not the actual ideas being battled, but the psychologies clashing. I disagree with that. Some ideologies actually require a certain type of thinking to be best defended. He thought thinking breeds a certain kind of philosophy. I think philosophy breeds a certain kind of thinking. You have an idea. That is first, and then you defend it with Te or Ti, whatever is best suitable. So, they aren't battling because they have different psychologies, but because they have different philosophies. While Jung would say the opposite.


Your disagreement is noted. So would you equate inductive reasoning with Ti and deductive reasoning with Te?


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> So would you equate inductive reasoning with Ti and deductive reasoning with Te?


I think it's abundantly clear that both forms of thinking use inductive and deductive reasoning alike. A more accurate portrayal is probably that of rationalism vs. empiricism. Philosophy vs. Science in general.

Ti seeks out validity, Te seeks out soundness.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Octavian said:


> I think it's abundantly clear that both forms of thinking use inductive and deductive reasoning alike. A more accurate portrayal is probably that of rationalism vs. empiricism. Philosophy vs. Science in general.
> 
> Ti seeks out validity, Te seeks out soundness.


Agreed. Care to make the inference on the point I was hoping to make with @_FearAndTrembling_ between what I wrote and what you wrote?


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Agreed. Care to make the inference on the point I was hoping to make with @_FearAndTrembling_ between what I wrote and what you wrote?


Nope. She's made at least 4 threads in this same spirit and I've attempted to correct her deeply flawed views of the functions on several occasions. In this thread alone several people have tried. She wants to view them the way she wants and she wants to project that onto all other users as well. Into the cognitive function model itself.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Bricolage said:


> Or an embryonic one dealing with complex psychological processes. MBTI isn't as clear-cut as botany because the former deals with hazy psychological processes and the latter with tangible phenomena.


An embryonic one that is started 100 years ago? How much more time should we give it? Why has other psychology been accepted so readily and quickly?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Octavian said:


> I think it's abundantly clear that both forms of thinking use inductive and deductive reasoning alike. A more accurate portrayal is probably that of rationalism vs. empiricism. Philosophy vs. Science in general.
> 
> Ti seeks out validity, Te seeks out soundness.


Which is exactly why it falls flat. Cause any Ti user can act like a total scientist, and Te user can act like a philosopher. So, where does that leave us, exactly? I mentioned this in the OP. A Ti user can be totally hostile to philosophy.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> An embryonic one that is started 100 years ago? How much more time should we give it? Why has other psychology been accepted so readily and quickly?


That's a valid point. Well, Jung's ideas were partly incorporated into MBTI, which is statistically supported to some extent by the Big 5.* And, hey, people are still arguing climate change and even evolution. The reason other psychological concepts are more readily accepted or dismissed is that certain concepts (e.g., depression or truancy) are more easily quantified and seen in behavior; also, the "establishment" basically doesn't let Jung into the discussion because analytical psychology is kinda "unscientific" and more qualitative (20th century psychology favored the lab over the psychoanalyst's couch); the "establishment" historically favored behaviorism over the psychodynamic approach.

*The Big 5 has more factor analysis to back it up; that's partly because the Big 5 was analyzed more. :laughing:


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Which is exactly why it falls flat. Cause any Ti user can act like a total scientist, and Te user can act like a philosopher. So, where does that leave us, exactly? I mentioned this in the OP. A Ti user can be totally hostile to philosophy.


You're too caught up in the practice and ignoring the natural preference. Yes a Te user can be a philosopher and a Ti user can be a scientist. We can name plenty of xNTJ and xNTP individuals that meet that criteria. But regardless, the Ti or Te preference is clear. There are entire fields split apart by it i.e. experimental vs. theoretical physics. Both science, one obviously Te, the other obviously Ti. This is not a difficult concept. You are overcomplicating and ignoring fundamentals.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Bricolage said:


> That's a valid point. Well, Jung's ideas were partly incorporated into MBTI, which is statistically supported to some extent by the Big 5. And, hey, people are still arguing climate change and even evolution. :tongue: The reason other psychological concepts are more readily accepted or dismissed is that certain concepts (e.g., depression or truancy) are more easily quantified and seen in behavior; also, the "establishment" basically doesn't let Jung into the discussion because analytic psychology is kinda "unscientific" and more qualitative; the "establishment" historically favored behaviorism over the psychodynamic approach.


Yes, you will always be able to find some Biologist quack, who doesn't believe in evolution. But they are very rare, and the Department/University usually makes a statement separating themselves from such things. But evolution is actually accepted by experts. 

I read Keirsey's book, for example. Where does this guy get his information? Seriously. He says stuff like, "INFJ are good for this type, SP are good at this, act like that. NT is best suited at this role. etc. etc.." These very detailed descriptions of these types, and people. What source did he tap into, that allowed him to come up with this stuff? A lot of his descriptions actually seem plausible. But nobody actually shows their work. How did Keirsey come up with types acting like that? Where is this information coming from?

Many people probably don't like Keirsey anyway, but Jung was actually not much different. He didn't really "show his work" either. He just described these things.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But evolution is actually accepted by experts.


How many decades after Darwin? And, remember, Darwin deals with fossil records; Jung deals with psychological concepts, which are intrinsically harder to prove.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Many people probably don't like Keirsey anyway, but Jung was actually not much different. He didn't really "show his work" either. He just described these things.


Jung admits that though. When you read about Te in Psychological Types, you get the feeling Jung had disdain for 20th century empiricism and the need to quantify his own work.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

@FearAndTrembling - There's not a 1-1 correlation between the speed at which a theory is vindicated by experts and its veracity.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Octavian said:


> You're too caught up in the practice and ignoring the natural preference. Yes a Te user can be a philosopher and a Ti user can be a scientist. We can name plenty of xNTJ and xNTP individuals that meet that criteria. But regardless, the Ti or Te preference is clear. There are entire fields split apart by it i.e. experimental vs. theoretical physics. Both science, one obviously Te, the other obviously Ti. This is not a difficult concept. You are overcomplicating and ignoring fundamentals.


I don't see the Ti or Te preference, as clear. You just keep saying it is. 

Nobody on this planet can even name an experimental physicist who lived in the past 50 years. Nearly every physicist we heard of is theoretical. Einstein, Hawking, Feynman, Sagan, Degrasse Tyson, Heisenberg, Bohr, basically every famous physicist of the last 100 years. So please, realize the fact that theoretical physics is "where it's at", and has nothing to do with Ti or Te inclination. It is just the nature of the field. But you ignore these factors when making assumptions. It's like saying athletes who prefer soccer over curling, are this or that. No, it is because one is more highly coveted and has more glory attached to it, and tends to attract people because of it. I mean, there are many more students of biology than there were a few decades ago. Is that because of an imbalance of Ti or Te, or because the field has just taken off? 

And those fields are split apart because they different subjects, not because of Ti and Te. Science and philosophy used to be the same field. It isn't because of Ti and Te, that we separated them. It was because of knowledge, and evolution of thought.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't see the Ti or Te preference, as clear. You just keep saying it is.



Well I'm known for being stubborn, Try these: 

Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what's observed.​
Introverted Thinking 

Contingency planning, scheduling, and quantifying utilize the process of extraverted Thinking. Extraverted Thinking helps us organize our environment and ideas through charts, tables, graphs, flow charts, outlines, and so on. At its most sophisticated, this process is about organizing and monitoring people and things to work efficiently and productively. Empirical thinking is at the core of extraverted Thinking when we challenge someone's ideas based on the logic of the facts in front of us or lay out reasonable explanations for decisions or conclusions made, often trying to establish order in someone else's thought process. In written or verbal communication, extraverted Thinking helps us easily follow someone else's logic, sequence, or organization. It also helps us notice when something is missing, like when someone says he or she is going to talk about four topics and talks about only three. In general, it allows us to compartmentalize many aspects of our lives so we can do what is necessary to accomplish our objectives.​
Extraverted Thinking


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Well I'm known for being stubborn, Try these:
> 
> Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what's observed.​
> Introverted Thinking
> ...


A noble and earnest attempt. I await the response with great anticipation.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> So please, realize the fact that theoretical physics is "where it's at", and has nothing to do with Ti or Te inclination. It is just the nature of the field.


You are either of low comprehension / intelligence or have a tendency to pull things right out of your ass.

First and foremost theory without experimental verification is philosophy. Theoretical physics specifically, tends to be based in thought experiment, Schrodinger's Cat, EPR paradox, etc. Any physicist with basic reasoning skills is saavy to the fact that all thought experiments require literal experiments. That quickly moves into the realm of what? Experimental Physics. SQUID relative to Schrodinger's Cat, and the Bell Inequalities relative to EPR. Experimental verification is needed to carry thought experiment out of the realm of philosophy and into the realm of science, so no, Theoretical physics is not where it's at. Even theoretical physicists, especially the ones you NAMED several of which I'd dispute over, knew that experimental physics was and is "where it's at."

Secondly, let's take a look at some major Experimental Physics projects:

- HERA
- The Large Hadron Collider
- JWST and it's investigation of universal origins
- HUNDREDS of others all outlined here https://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/experiments/online_exp.shtml 

Just few clicks around the internet and it's apparent that your most immediate notion is incorrect. Well that's not a recurring trend with you at all. 



> Nobody on this planet can even name an experimental physicist who lived in the past 50 years.


Stephen Hawking. Any and all other experimental physicists that have and will contribute to their fields will not have a legacy until long after they've died. How many scientists have been celebrities while living? 



> It's like saying athletes who prefer soccer over curling, are this or that. No, it is because one is more highly coveted and has more glory attached to it, and tends to attract people because of it. I mean, there are many more students of biology than there were a few decades ago. Is that because of an imbalance of Ti or Te, or because the field has just taken off?


No idea what you're trying to say here it's just a jumbled mess made worse by a metaphor that makes no sense. 



> And those fields are split apart because they different subjects, not because of Ti and Te. Science and philosophy used to be the same field. It isn't because of Ti and Te, that we separated them.


The individuals within these fields had specific inclinations and preferences when it came to rationality. There is a reason that the vast majority of empiricists are Te and the vast majority of rationalists are Ti. There is a reason that there has been a historical rift between empiricism and rationalism, that continues to this day, most intense within academia. These individuals created the rift. Knowingly or not. Purposely or not. 

The thinking functions orient towards different modes of thinking. Even when they occupy the same field, or switch to a field that is predominantly Te or Ti, their preference is projected. Undeniable. Clear. Obvious.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

There's a lot of insight and intelligence in this thread, none of it coming from the OP, the irony.


----------



## bgoodforgoodsake (Feb 5, 2014)

Seph said:


> The functions ARE exaggerated archetypes: hence when trying to reduce and apply them to reality all you get is vague paintings that fits anywhere like a horoscope. All they define is themselves.


You sound like a Ti Dom or Aux are you INTP or ENTP? Just a guess.

I agree there isn't enough data to prove the existence of any of this. But the model seems to work.
By that I mean I talk to someone, who has not heard of Myers Briggs. I then try to discover their Dominant and Auxiliary functions. 
Afterwards they take an online test and without exception I get the functions right. The function order I have gotten right 92 out of 123 times. Roughly 74%


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Octavian said:


> You are either of low comprehension / intelligence or have a tendency to pull things right out of your ass.
> 
> First and foremost theory without experimental verification is philosophy. Theoretical physics specifically, tends to be based in thought experiment, Schrodinger's Cat, EPR paradox, etc. Any physicist with basic reasoning skills is saavy to the fact that all thought experiments require literal experiments. That quickly moves into the realm of what? Experimental Physics. SQUID relative to Schrodinger's Cat, and the Bell Inequalities relative to EPR. Experimental verification is needed to carry thought experiment out of the realm of philosophy and into the realm of science, so no, Theoretical physics is not where it's at. Even theoretical physicists, especially the ones you NAMED several of which I'd dispute over, knew that experimental physics was and is "where it's at."
> 
> ...


Are you honestly serious right now? Physics is reduced to schroedinger's cat, to you? I am growing tired of pop interpretations of science and philosophy. 

Observation without theory, is merely fact collecting. My cat can do it. It is abstraction of concepts that makes it work. You can observe something a billion times, and learn nothing about it. 

Quantum mechanics has given us the the most precise theories in HUMAN HISTORY. Quantum electrodynamics, is, objectively, the most physically precise theory on Earth. Quantum Chromodynamics is not far behind. Standard Model, etc. But you reduce it to thought experiments. Seriously, theoretical physics gives us the most precise theories in our species history, and you reduce them to the most pop culture nonsense. Who has won a Nobel for these thought experiments? You think QM is lauded, because you of its most superficial communication to the public, and then call me a simpleton. 

Short version: TP seems like philosophy to you. It seems like the most precise to anyone who actually knows its history.

Source on rationalists using Ti, and empiricists using Te? Didn't think so. lol.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Are you honestly serious right now? Physics is reduced to schroedinger's cat, to you? I am growing tired of pop interpretations of science and philosophy.
> 
> Observation without theory, is merely fact collecting. My cat can do it. It is abstraction of concepts that makes it work. You can observe something a billion times, and learn nothing about it.
> 
> ...


Read what I typed over and over until you are actually able comprehend what I was saying. Don't project your own ignorance and foolhardiness into my post.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Octavian said:


> Read what I typed over and over until you are actually able comprehend what I was saying. Don't project your own ignorance and foolhardiness into my post.


I'll take this as a concession. Go point by point, and refute. I will be here.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I'll take this as a concession. Go point by point, and refute. I will be here.


Refute the points that have been refuted in both of my above posts as well as over and over again throughout this entire thread? Lol. Keep waiting.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Octavian said:


> Refute the points that have been refuted in both of my above posts as well as over and over again throughout this entire thread? Lol. Keep waiting.


Most empiricists use Te, and rationalists use Ti. Prove that. 

Prove that either even exist. It is a bulletproof argument, because you have nothing. I'm not even the least bit worried you could justify it. I could come back to my computer in 20 years, and you will still be in the same place.


----------



## Tynen (Aug 26, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Most empiricists use Te, and rationalists use Ti. Prove that.
> 
> Prove that either even exist. It is a bulletproof argument, because you have nothing. I'm not even the least bit worried you could justify it. I could come back to my computer in 20 years, and you will still be in the same place.


Dario nardi eeg studies... I posted a YouTube video... 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Most empiricists use Te, and rationalists use Ti. Prove that.
> 
> Prove that either even exist. It is a bulletproof argument, because you have nothing.


It's a bulletproof argument because you have a faith equivalent to that of lunatical ravings in your own perceptions. You do not respond to reason or clear evidence which has been provided throughout the thread and by me as well, yet you expect me to further waste my time on you. Final reply from me, take that as a victory if you desire, I'll pity such a notion silently.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Octavian said:


> It's a bulletproof argument because you have a faith equivalent to that of lunatical ravings in your own perceptions. You do not respond to reason or clear evidence which has been provided throughout the thread and by me as well, yet you expect me to further waste my time on you. Final reply from me, take that as a victory if you desire, I'll pity such a notion silently.


I don't think you know what evidence is. I am a true seeker of knowledge.

All I get from this post is: I have nothing, but want to save face.

I have asked you for evidence, you have given none. 

I just want to know what you know, that every right thinking person in the field, who has actually studied it, does not. 

I think some of you need exposure therapy. Your beliefs are so insulated, and disconnected. Go to a conference on cognitive science, and neuroscience. And start talking, to actual experts. I would actually pay to see that. It would be such comedy.


----------



## Tynen (Aug 26, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't think you know what evidence is. I am a true seeker of knowledge.
> 
> All I get from this post is: I have nothing, but want to save face.
> 
> ...


Dario nardi eeg studies

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------

