# Mysteries, Strange and Weird news and other things.



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

I am really into these, and I think it kinda makes sense for us NTs to be into these.

I wonder if you guys agree?


----------



## Solrac026 (Mar 6, 2012)

Things they don't want you to know series on Youtube.


----------



## SilverKelpie (Mar 9, 2015)

If you are referring to alien abductions and the location of Noah's ark and similar such "news," then I'm into it in the sense of trying to puzzle out why people believe such absurd things.


----------



## Miss Anne Thrope (May 2, 2015)

I mean I am quite the fan of true crime and unexplained disappearances but I'm not sure if these count?


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

Miss Anne Thrope said:


> I mean I am quite the fan of true crime and unexplained disappearances but I'm not sure if these count?


Yes 'Unexplained disappearances/murders etc' counts.

Also mysteries like Unfavorable semicircle and Cicada 3301, etc.

Paranormal like Ghosts and demons...

Big foot, and all other infamous X-files news.

And weird news like some UFO or lights in the sky, Strange sound coming from afar.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

SilverKelpie said:


> If you are referring to alien abductions and the location of Noah's ark and similar such "news," then I'm into it in the sense of trying to puzzle out why people believe such absurd things.


Regarding Alien abductions: I am not sure that I fully believe it either, but just that like UFO sightings, and people seeing ghosts, it to me seems like the number of people who has claimed to see or experienced those things are really TOO HIGH to consider it must be fake.

As intuitive people that we are, there are many documentaries regarding these it just makes an impression that these people does not seem to be all liars. We are supposed to be pretty good at telling lies, but many documentaries feature subjects seem to be authentic!

Again, I am not saying I believe it fully yet, but I am OPEN to the *possibilities *that it's not fake and could be the truth. Is it really absurd, or you are not open to these possibilities?


But, I would think that us ENTPs are more open minded than INTPs.


----------



## SilverKelpie (Mar 9, 2015)

LoveDragonDon said:


> Regarding Alien abductions: I am not sure that I fully believe it either, but just that like UFO sightings, and people seeing ghosts, it to me seems like the number of people who has claimed to see or experienced those things are really TOO HIGH to consider it must be fake.
> 
> As intuitive people that we are, there are many documentaries regarding these it just makes an impression that these people does not seem to be all liars. We are supposed to be pretty good at telling lies, but many documentaries feature subjects seem to be authentic!
> 
> ...


Millions of people believe in the story of Noah's ark too, global flood and all, and yet that is provably false. Just because a ton of people believe something does not make it true.

As for the people seeming to not be liars, I have no doubt many of them aren't and truly believe they have been abducted. That doesn't mean they have, just that they have a combination of experiences that they don't understand, cultural influences, and beliefs that make them certain that the best explanation for whatever much more likely thing it is they experienced (such as, for example, dreams combined with sleep paralysis) is actually alien abduction.

Perhaps ENTPs are more open. My ENTP best friend as a child believed she was a vampire for a while, and then that she could control the weather. I was always rather fascinated by the ideas she came up with. Then again, that is anecdotal and a sample size of one.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

I will not talk about Noah's ark since that's more of a religious thing which I am actually not as interested than the paranormal and weird stuff, by far.

Actually, religion and politics are two of the LEAST things that I am into.

I am a VERY OPEN minded person, and I see it's entirely possible people are honest and not liars in the documentaries and they say they experienced ghosts, and seen UFOs. You maybe right that it's something that they don't understand, but it doesn't hurt to believe it's the truth, either. Especially when we can't prove that it's because that they don't understand, we need to be more open minded.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

Weird, I really thought that the NTs would like these more out of all the personality types.


----------



## SilverKelpie (Mar 9, 2015)

LoveDragonDon said:


> I am a VERY OPEN minded person, and I see it's entirely possible people are honest and not liars in the documentaries and they say they experienced ghosts, and seen UFOs. You maybe right that it's something that they don't understand, but it doesn't hurt to believe it's the truth, either. Especially when we can't prove that it's because that they don't understand, we need to be more open minded.


But it _does_ hurt to "believe it's the truth." Just believing things without critically examining them because people seem honest and earnest and, by golly, you just like how it sounds, has lead to no end of trouble within human society.


----------



## Miss Anne Thrope (May 2, 2015)

I agree with @SilverKelpie.

It's important to keep an open mind but not so open that our brains fall out.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

Nah @Miss Anne Thrope I don't agree with @SilverKelpie. The whole thing about keep an open mind, to me at least, is to consider *ALL *the possibilities even those that can not be explained, beyond our knowledge.

I def also critically examine. Trust me on that!

But you know (or maybe you don't) at most paranormal investigations that I been to, they DON'T just believe in ghosts, and such easily *what you were saying (if I understood you right)* without logic. Have you ever actually been to one? They critically examine every detail to conclude that it simply can not be explained by science or something natural.

One thing that I can not stand with close-minded naysayers is that despite you all may love to critical thinking, but you can NOT come out with any of the facts and answers definitively. Like, if it's not possibly ghost, paranormal, or UFO something you yourself even cannot explain, then what is it? You maybe GUESS based on educated guess but Sorry, but educated guesses still doesn't count as a definitive proof or good critical examining, at all. Anybody can guess, (I have college degree you don't think my guess are as educated as yours?) Just cuz you are so smart and you can critically think doesn't mean you must be right when you aren't sure, you know?

If you are able to definitively prove that these people are in fact lying, and ghosts, etc really don't exist then ... but of course you can't, no one can right now. So TOTALLY DISAGREE with your thought process on this. It's not about being critically thinking/examine, it just seem to be close-minded, to me.



Regardless...

Fascinating. Then I am wrong in thinking NTs are the ones more likely interested in these things????

Which types would you say are more interested in these kind of things then?


Any other ENTPs care to comment whether you agree or disagree, seems that the INTPs don't.



God, I really LOVE Mysteries, Strange and Weird news but seeing that some other people who I thought would be interested really aren't is making me sad and questioning 'Why'.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

Miss Anne Thrope said:


> I agree with @SilverKelpie.
> 
> It's important to keep an open mind but not so open that our brains fall out.




Plus nope, assure you that my brain isn't falling out in any way. I rather think it's fun and awesome to keep an open mind like that, to think about ALL these possibilities and what ifs.


----------



## Miss Anne Thrope (May 2, 2015)

I don't care if you agree with Silver, I was saying I do.
I think you're choosing to be defensive instead of realizing we are saying, keep an open mind but you can't assume "fairies" and go with that because you can't seem to scientifically prove otherwise.


----------



## Miss Anne Thrope (May 2, 2015)

PS.
Go to reddit, that's where I go for mysteries, oddities, etc. On the right subreddits they are very active and post a lot so there is always something.
Also, check out missing 411 if you haven't.

Just because a person can be extremely critical doesn't mean they don't have an interest. I am just hesitant to assign an answer when I feel like there isn't enough evidence.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

Miss Anne Thrope said:


> I think you're choosing to be defensive instead of realizing we are saying, keep an open mind but you can't assume "fairies" and go with that because you can't seem to scientifically prove otherwise.


First, it has nothing to do with being defensive. I believe because I think I am really damn open minded. You don't believe but you say it's not because you are more close-minded. What this really have to do with being defensive?


Again, the basis of Paranormal = something we don't understand, can't explain. (Definition - events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.) As in Science can't explain it. Logic can't explain it. Nature can't explain it.


Now I am NOT saying if science or any of these can't explain it, I must think it's paranormal. This is NOT what I am saying. I don't live in a world of black or white. I am just saying that we need to open our minds to consider the possibility that it is **possibly**paranormal, until PROVEN otherwise.

So, you are telling me, that it shouldn't be considered even though nobody can explain it? (Again, even taking educated guesses is not the answer when you can't be CERTAIN.)

I CAN'T accept that!

Fact is out there, that even many intellectual people with good critical thinking/examining would still believe in such supernatural stuff.


I am DISAPPOINTED. *SIGH*


Also read - http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...minded-about-paranormal-stuff-so-why-not-you/


----------



## Miss Anne Thrope (May 2, 2015)

Where did I say I didn't believe in anything specifically?
All I said was it is important to be open minded but to also be critical. It doesn't make a person close minded to want to make sure they have all the available facts.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

Of course it's important to be critical. I even said that did you miss that?


I posted


> I def also critically examine. Trust me on that!


A lot of other paranormal investigator do, as well.


The bottomline is, to me, that if I give it critical examining/thinking and still can not explain it I gotta keep the possibility OPEN that it could be paranormal rather than dismiss it!

As NTs I think we owe it to ourselves to think critically at all times, but also with N we need to see all possibilities, including those that can't be explained by science/nature/logic.

Until anything is proven precisely, it is NOT not critical examining to believe such things.


----------



## Miss Anne Thrope (May 2, 2015)

LoveDragonDon said:


> Of course it's important to be critical. I even said that did you miss that?
> 
> 
> I posted
> ...


The only one that has been talking about dismissing things has been you. Again, nowhere did I say anything about dismissing claims.

I simply said I don't automatically jump to accepting extraordinary claims as the absolute truth simply because the ordinary has yet to explain it. That should be easy to understand considering being "open minded" and "keeping all possibilities open" keeps coming up in this thread.
Remaining open to the fact that one day science could explain it doesn't mean dismissal of other possibilities. For all you know the science behind it could be ground breaking and verify the paranormal.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

OK, maybe at least I think we can agree that you misunderstood me. I never said anything like what you thought I said either (ie: automatically jump to accepting extraordinary claims as the absolute truth)

Also, yes maybe we don't have all the science knowledge yet, that's possible.

But what I don't understand is why not give 'Paranormal' benefit of doubt, maybe there will NOT be scientific explanations for it, no matter how long you wait around for science explanations.

Again, not saying I believe it will be the 'Absolute Truth' but I don't dismiss it as a strong possibility.



I am still pretty damn disappointed though.


----------



## Miss Anne Thrope (May 2, 2015)

LoveDragonDon said:


> OK, maybe at least I think we can agree that you misunderstood me. I never said anything like what you thought I said either (ie: automatically jump to accepting extraordinary claims as the absolute truth)
> 
> Also, yes maybe we don't have all the science knowledge yet, that's possible.
> 
> ...


What are you talking about? I am talking about me. Not you. Me. I wasn't saying you are automatically jumping to anything. I literally said that I don't jump to accept extraordinary claims. (I won't copy and paste the comment but you're free to go back.)
I never said paranormal explanations were off the table and I never doubted how critical you are of the evidence provided to you.

There is literally nothing to argue about but you insist on shit like I am dismissing the paranormal. I never said that, not once. 
I personally feel as though one can remain completely objective while keeping your "mind opended" to all possibilities.

I came in stating how I feel and since then you have assumed I was directing it towards you and I'm being "close minded" due to you assuming I am dismissing the paranormal.
How does any of that make sense?

Again, none of what I have said was geared towards you or how you approach a situation. It was geared towards me feeling as though it's possible to remain objective and continue to consider all possibilities despite not having a definitive answer with airtight evidence.
(I'm not trying to say that I think you do otherwise, FYI.)


----------



## SilverKelpie (Mar 9, 2015)

Oh, goodness, what happened to this thread!



LoveDragonDon said:


> But you know (or maybe you don't) at most paranormal investigations that I been to, they DON'T just believe in ghosts, and such easily *what you were saying (if I understood you right)* without logic. Have you ever actually been to one? They critically examine every detail to conclude that it simply can not be explained by science or something natural.


You're right. I've never been to one. However, I grew up watching "In Search Of..." and have always been intrigued by people who believe weird things, so I can guess what goes on there. I would guess their "critically examine" involves cherry-picking data, studies that haven't been replicated and are published in off-beat journals, and taking their own wild hunches and wishful thinking as "just as good" as empirical studies.



LoveDragonDon said:


> One thing that I can not stand with close-minded naysayers is that despite you all may love to critical thinking, but you can NOT come out with any of the facts and answers definitively. Like, if it's not possibly ghost, paranormal, or UFO something you yourself even cannot explain, then what is it? You maybe GUESS based on educated guess but Sorry, but educated guesses still doesn't count as a definitive proof or good critical examining, at all. (...)
> 
> If you are able to definitively prove that these people are in fact lying, and ghosts, etc really don't exist then ... but of course you can't, no one can right now.





LoveDragonDon said:


> So, you are telling me, that it shouldn't be considered even though nobody can explain it? (Again, even taking educated guesses is not the answer when you can't be CERTAIN.)


Look, the burden of proof is not on the people saying invisible unicorns don't exist. It's on the people who come up and say "Invisible unicorns exist!" to prove it. So, these people who swear up and down they saw ghosts and UFOs and can read minds _need to prove it._ And you know what? People have wanted these things to be real for thousands of years, maybe a couple million. (Okay, not UFOs exactly. They are a more recent hysteria.) And guess what? They haven't been able to prove them! These things, if they exist should be measurable. Even scientists have been looking since the dawn of science. And, guess what, there these things aren't.

The "unexplained" in the cases also are often quite explainable. People love the mystery though, so they often don't look for the more plausible explanations or they discard them when they hear them in favor of the world view they prefer.

Also, that blog on Scientific American makes me wince. The guy is fanning flames, stretching reality.



LoveDragonDon said:


> God, I really LOVE Mysteries, Strange and Weird news but seeing that some other people who I thought would be interested really aren't is making me sad and questioning 'Why'.


To answer your question "Why," I like mysteries too, but I love a world in which people try their very hardest to look past what they want to be true and find out for sure if it's _really _true even more. Truth, discoveries based in reality, give me more excitement than any pretty but unsubstantiated ideas ever would. False beliefs, as pretty as they can be, are disappointing and hollow to me precisely because they aren't real. Additionally, I've seen a lot of suffering over the years that I think has been caused or exacerbated by people wanting to believe weird things. Sorry to hear that we're making you sad, but I'm sure you have plenty of people on your side that you can enjoy these things with, rendering our opinions moot.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

1) @Miss Anne Thrope Excuse me if I have misunderstood you, Got you.

2) @SilverKelpie The better investigators go to lengths to try to explain it in natural, science until it can't be explained. I think you underestimate paranormal investigators' rationality.

Many PIs attitude is they treat science and natural cause with uttermost regard, but often you can't blame them for missing a science fallacy because more knowledgably scientists would not come along and provide insights to them. THEY DO THEIR BEST!

_'automatically jump to accepting extraordinary claims as the absolute truth_' is certainly NOT what we do!

Many of them even ignore 'Orbs' from photography now, due to dust can cause that... etc. Any good investigators would dismiss any evidences that may be explainable by natural/scientific means.

3) I am not talking about Unicorns, I am talking about ghosts, apparations and paranormal NOT the same thing as Fantasy/Disney stuff! 

4) And, I certainly disagree with you, the 'burden of proof' is on those making fun of those who believe these things.

We who believe in paranormal, are not saying the contrary "Oh you reality-only people are wrong" we don't say that out of respect and open-mindness. We do respect science (Science geek BTW) but if it can't explain it, then what?

So, why should you 'reality-only' people say us 'paranormal believers' are wrong, yet you can NOT prove otherwise?

So, the 'burden of proof' should be on those calling others wrong, and not the other way around!


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

Skeptics are often really not better than believers. Depends on what kind of skeptic and what kind of believer are you. And, not all of the believers are the same, some will like you said ''automatically jump to accepting extraordinary claims as the absolute truth' but that's certainly UNTRUE for many PIs including myself. We would not only be open-minded about possibilities of paranormal, but also we use critical thinking by every means before we come to that conclusion that things are perhaps of paranormal nature!

Here is a letter from a PI to a skeptic, note what I bold.



> ...and *found almost everything you said completely accurate*. We have no real idea how to detect an entity and *most of the tools we use are unreliable at best*. Our organization does use the basic tools of the trade, *the only way to test an instrument's usefulness in the field is to experiment with it*. However, we do not use occult tools such as Ouija boards, mediums, or dowsing rods. I make it very clear to our investigators that we are NOT scientists. I think of us more as historians or detectives. *Our greatest tool is rational thinking*. We are called in to find out what is really happening at a location, and we do this very well. *Our standards for video, EVP, or other "evidence" is very high*. *Most cases of activity are completely explainable*. Unfortunately, TV has sensationalized the field and brought in too many thrill seekers and single-visioned believers. I tend to turn to websites like yours when* I'm searching for explanations to unexplained activity*. While I agree that this field is filled with many flaws, please remember that not all of us are the same. *Some of us are honestly only looking for the truth*. Thank you.


 

We fellow believers would say this letter is very rational, logical, RESPECTFUL. We indeed investigate paranormal with as much 'critical thinking, and science and as rational ' as we possibly can.

What would an usual skeptic say? Probably still not good enough, I think. I see a bunch of skeptics dismissing whatever tools and evidence that PIs gathered, without even proving that it can not be possible.



A GOOD skeptic would say "I know you are indeed very rational, thought it thru, you ruled out that it's not explainable by science so I can not deny that it maybe Paranormal. You did your best, and your standards is very high. I respect and value that."

A BAD skeptic on the other hand would say "Maybe you are rational, I don't know, but there has to be a fallacy somewhere. Even I can not explain how it happened, it's probably explainable by science or natural causes and I am guessing that is what it is. The tools you are using aren't reliable. Your methods are laughable."




Likewise, a random ghost photo pops up online that is trending (doesn't seem obvious that it's fake) -

A GOOD skeptic will say - "Not sure I believe it, seem legit, but could be explainable with science here is a theory...."

A BAD skeptic will say - "Must be faked/photoshopped."



It is a logical fallacy on skeptics part that they dismiss believers just because there isn't scientific proof.

The PI does enough to provide often convincing photos, EVPs, videos that is hard to explain by science, the 'burden of proof' is on those skeptics who still thinks these evidences aren't good enough to prove it can be explained otherwise, precisely.

The PIs can rule out scientific/nature causes by critical thinking, but it makes NO sense for PIs to try to further prove it, because of the nature of Paranormal is that it is beyond science/nature.


----------



## SilverKelpie (Mar 9, 2015)

LoveDragonDon said:


> 2) @SilverKelpie The better investigators go to lengths to try to explain it in natural, science until it can't be explained. I think you underestimate paranormal investigators' rationality.


I would love some examples, but I suspect that if they can't find a realistic explanation, they are too busy zeroing in on trees and have forgotten to take a step back to look at the forest.



LoveDragonDon said:


> Many PIs attitude is they treat science and natural cause with uttermost regard, but often you can't blame them for missing a science fallacy because more knowledgably scientists would not come along and provide insights to them. THEY DO THEIR BEST!


Well. That's the most bizarre bit of blame that I've seen you throw at the feet of scientists yet. Keep in mind that scientists have been investigating this stuff since the birth of the scientific method. If PIs don't like the results, that's on them.



LoveDragonDon said:


> 3) I am not talking about Unicorns, I am talking about ghosts, apparations and paranormal NOT the same thing as Fantasy/Disney stuff!


But that _is_ the same thing. People believed in unicorns just like they believe in ghosts and aliens now. I'm going to refer you to the most excellent book 'Lore of the Unicorn' by Odell Shepard. In the book he recounts arguments theologians had with skeptics concerning the existence of unicorns. It was a hot point of debate because many Christians believed unicorns must exist due to translations of certain Biblical words. The theologians believed that if unicorns did not exist, that would introduce the concept that there could be an error in the Bible, and thus throw the whole book in doubt. 

Another example are kelpies and other water horses. There is a good book out there on Scandinavian folklore from he late 1800s that includes examples of sightings of kelpies and other water horses. Yet, you would surely dismiss them out of hand just like the unicorn.

Aliens in general now have in many ways taken the place of the concept of fairies back then. Many people believed they abducted humans.

So...how are these things different from ghosts and aliens other than people no longer believe in them, but (still believe in ghosts) and believe in aliens instead, with exactly the same lack of evidence?



LoveDragonDon said:


> 4) And, I certainly disagree with you, the 'burden of proof' is on those making fun of those who believe these things.
> 
> We who believe in paranormal, are not saying the contrary "Oh you reality-only people are wrong" we don't say that out of respect and open-mindness. We do respect science (Science geek BTW) but if it can't explain it, then what?
> 
> ...


You may think so, but burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. If someone came up to you and said "Unicorns exist!" Would you just believe them, or expect solid evidence? The world turns on the people making assertions being the ones that need to prove their point. And this is true in science, too. When "continental drift" was proposed due to the shape of the continents, it wasn't just accepted. It need to be proven. The distribution of fossils over continents was strong evidence, but it took finding the mechanism (tectonic plates) to be fully accepted. Just believing whatever unusual point someone asserts is foolish. They have the burden of proof.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

It is really hard to convince a skeptic, so for me to argue with you endlessly I just do not think it will be much of a meaningful outcome. 

I think that most believers and skeptics draw a line and not argue with each other, because it's probably an argument that wouldn't result in any changing mind no matter how many times, how hard the argument, how long people argue.



But just to respond to some of your points that is clearly misunderstood or disagreed

1) There are no examples that would change a skeptics mind yet, at least obviously. What I am saying is that GOOD PIs they would absolutely rely on logic and rational thinking before accepting something maybe paranormal.

I didn't say every PI has found undeniable proof of paranormal, that's not what I am saying.

2) I am not blaming scientists, I am just saying when PIs going to investigate they are not scientists investigate, they also usually will not have any other scientists come along to help debunk.

3) NO NO NO NO NO.

Unicorns is NOT the type of paranormal that I am associating. Ghosts, aliens, UFOs... YES

Unicorns NO!



I mean, I don't know if I can argue with you much longer. 

However, I do find it fascinating that this belief in Paranormal thing is not tied to MBTI. And, the way believers and skeptics see the same information is vastly different, night and day! *FASCINATING*.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

LoveDragonDon said:


> However, I do find it fascinating that this belief in Paranormal thing is not tied to MBTI. And, the way believers and skeptics see the same information is vastly different, night and day! *FASCINATING*.


Why do you think it's not tied to MBTI? Have you asked others than NTs?


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

@Jamaia
Maybe there is, but doesn't seem like the tie is that strong so I'll say there is either no tie, or more NTs are not admitting they believe for some reason.

Obviously, I made a poll, and I got a lot more people on the skeptic side than believe side. And, I get more skeptic responses as well.



N - Read between the lines; Open and think about possibilities so much; trust impressions, symbols, metaphors; interested in cases that's different.

S- Pragmatic and look to the bottomline; trust experience more than impressions and symbols; remember what actually happened, experiences, 

So, belief in paranormal phenomena is supposed to be HEAVILY associated with the N types and not S types much. Unless a S have actually experienced paranormal him/herself, much less likely for them to believe in it than Ns.

Ns would be more likely be OPEN than close to possibilities of paranormal. And S would think paranormal is not possible because they never experienced it before.


Also,

T - Rational, logical, but also would find subject matters interesting (Which I am definitely showing)
F - Maybe people connection; maybe compassionate when they think about ghosts, paranormal, I don't know

But I am not the F I do not care about the people or compassionate with ghost angle at all.

I just find the cases mind-boggling, interesting, and want to find out about is really the truth, because the science logic, nature logic just doesn't add up for me!


So, while I can understand where the T would make ENTPs, or INTPs more skeptical, but what I am baffled is with the N in place then why there is not much influence with the N when mingled with the T?

I would think that T/F is not stronger than N/S so I thought supposedly more NTPs would be believe more.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

I wonder though if NFs are more believers, in that they believe in paranormal more based on a feeling of connection with ghosts but I certainly have not felt that NOR do I care about the connection with ghosts. I am more fascinated with the possibilities of ghosts than about connection. I don't know what role E/I, P and J play in this


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Your idea of F-types seems to be that they are not interested in logic, not rational. That's not true. "Feelers" think and "Thinkers" feel, all can be rational and irrational.



LoveDragonDon said:


> T - Rational, logical, but also would find subject matters interesting (Which I am definitely showing)
> F - Maybe people connection; maybe compassionate when they think about ghosts, paranormal, I don't know
> 
> But I am not the F I do not care about the people or compassionate with ghost angle at all.





LoveDragonDon said:


> I wonder though if NFs are more believers, in that they believe in paranormal more based on a feeling of connection with ghosts but I certainly have not felt that NOR do I care about the connection with ghosts. I am more fascinated with the possibilities of ghosts than about connection. I don't know what role E/I, P and J play in this


F and T are Judging functions. F is about values guiding what is right/correct and what is wrong more so than "cold logic". Compassion to ghosts has nothing to do with it.

Fe is "people-oriented", because its value system is external, impersonal, the idea of what is right is more about what other people want/need, what society requires etc. Fe might feel/think it is wrong to dismiss ghosts because it has respect for people who believe in ghosts, not because Fe believes it is logical or proven that ghosts exist. Definitely not because of feeling a personal connection or compassion for the ghosts. 

Fi values are based on internal system or personal hierarchy. To Fi it's not what others or the society feels is right that impacts their judgment, their values and idea of what is right is something that is subjective to them. It's about how they feel about an issue. Something may feel right to Fi even if others don't agree or get upset about it or say it doesn't make sense. Fi might want to keep the option of ghosts open if the idea is appealing personally, even if Te- and Ti-based analysis objects.

This preference doesn't mean they don't understand logic, or that FJ (Fe) and FP (Fi) don't use Te and Ti, they do when it's applicable.


----------



## SilverKelpie (Mar 9, 2015)

LoveDragonDon said:


> It is really hard to convince a skeptic, so for me to argue with you endlessly I just do not think it will be much of a meaningful outcome.


Well, we are unlikely to convince each other, but I'm having a good time sparring and organizing my thoughts on the matter.



LoveDragonDon said:


> 1) There are no examples that would change a skeptics mind yet, at least obviously. What I am saying is that GOOD PIs they would absolutely rely on logic and rational thinking before accepting something maybe paranormal.
> 
> I didn't say every PI has found undeniable proof of paranormal, that's not what I am saying.


But they shouldn't accept it if there is no proof.




LoveDragonDon said:


> 2) I am not blaming scientists, I am just saying when PIs going to investigate they are not scientists investigate, they also usually will not have any other scientists come along to help debunk.


The wording you used sure sounds like blame: "often you can't blame them for missing a science fallacy because more knowledgably scientists would not come along and provide insights to them." You make it sound like they are entitled to scientists coming and explaining things to them (and it's not the PIs fault if scientist don't do so).

But if a PI is not competent enough without a scientist to explain how science works, they probably shouldn't be making any claims.



LoveDragonDon said:


> 3) NO NO NO NO NO.
> 
> Unicorns is NOT the type of paranormal that I am associating. Ghosts, aliens, UFOs... YES
> 
> Unicorns NO!


As diverting as an argument in the form of a wall of caps lock "no"s is, it doesn't make for a very convincing one. What is your actual argument for unicorns/kelpies/fairies not being the same idea?




LoveDragonDon said:


> However, I do find it fascinating that this belief in Paranormal thing is not tied to MBTI. And, the way believers and skeptics see the same information is vastly different, night and day! *FASCINATING*.


One thread you can have fun looking at is this one on belief in ghosts: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/810418-ghosts-your-experiences-opinion-mbti-type.html

The breakdown of the responses was:

Yes
INFP
INFJ x3
INTJ

Maybe
INTP
INFJ
INFP x2
INTJ

No
INFP
INTP x2
ISTJ
INTJ
INFJ
ISFJ
ENTP

In this small sample, the NFs generally seem to skew more to the "yes" side, and the NTs to the "no."


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Merrylin Cryptid Museum

I saw this in my FB feed yesterday. I really love the idea! Maybe the museum won't materialize, but this project made my day .


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> Your idea of F-types seems to be that they are not interested in logic, not rational. That's not true. "Feelers" think and "Thinkers" feel, all can be rational and irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ummm *No you COMPLETELY misunderstood*...

I said *maybe * it's why Fs would more likely believe paranormal vs the Ts, but then I obviously said I don't know for sure. I was guessing, because I really not sure what would make a F believe in paranormal...?


I also clearly DIDN'T say Fs aren't logical, rational, but I did said Ts are, didn't mean I said Fs aren't.

Please DON'T put words in my mouth.

In the end, I still think that MBTI had nothing to do with believing paranormal, based on responses and observations, based on the poll I made and comments I read from majority of skeptics like YOU.

PROOF, where I was not sure what I said




> *Maybe * people connection; *maybe * compassionate when they think about ghosts, paranormal,* I don't know*




So what you said doesn't mean anything since I NEVER said I was sure what I was talking about. Plus I NEVER implied Feelers don't think.


Hope you feel really good being right about something I was never that sure to begin with...


----------



## SilverKelpie (Mar 9, 2015)

LoveDragonDon said:


> I said *maybe * it's why Fs would more likely believe paranormal vs the Ts, but then I obviously said I don't know for sure. I was guessing, because I really not sure what would make a F believe in paranormal...?


I once heard someone simplify F vs. T down to valuing what is Right vs what is True. Quite possibly for an F, belief in the paranormal could be because it feels right. My SO is an F with some belief in the paranormal. I should ask him and report back.



LoveDragonDon said:


> In the end, I still think that MBTI had nothing to do with believing paranormal, based on responses and observations, based on the poll I made and comments I read from majority of skeptics like YOU.




The poll I dragged out (small sample size and self reporting) skewed F for belief in ghosts. Honestly, I would not be surprised if belief in the paranormal did correlate to a small degree with MBTI, just like religion. (For example you will find, as a percentage, fewer religious INTPs than ISFJs.)


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

LoveDragonDon said:


> Ummm *No you COMPLETELY misunderstood*...
> 
> I said *maybe * it's why Fs would more likely believe paranormal vs the Ts, but then I obviously said I don't know for sure. I was guessing, because I really not sure what would make a F believe in paranormal...?
> 
> ...


You won't like this reply anymore than the previous one, but I'll reply anyway.

I didn't miss the uncertainty of your statements or they maybes or the idontknows. I wasn't arguing with you about the reasons F-types might believe in paranormal thinking you were claiming something with certainty. The reason I replied to your uncertain thoughts irregardless of their clear uncertainty, was that the reason you were guessing was not "because I really not sure what would make a F believe in paranormal" in particular. The reason you were unsure and guessing was because you don't know what the T/F-division is about, even though you are certain you are not F. I was trying to help.

Personality type supposedly has to do with the way person comes to conclusions, not so much what that conclusions are. I think MBTI type has a lot to do with "believing in paranormal", but it's not a direct cause-effect-relationship and conclusions can't obviously be based on a handful of people. There are many things about this topic that could show the way different types approach it, but you would have to know how people go about explaining their views and not so much what their views are.


----------

