# Thread: Asperger's Syndrome and MBTI type.

1. Originally Posted by Researcher
You still don't understand....

Yes, the intent is always one-sided (for example, just Ti).

But, the effect in reality is always two-sided (for example, showing both Ti & Fe at the same time, even though the intent was just Ti).
No, the intent is usally multi-causal. Except in robots! But there is a difference between what it is and what you interpret it to be in the effect. Your fart can make me laugh, but that does not make it a joke.

2. Originally Posted by Nicodemus
No, the intent is usally multi-causal. Except in robots! But there is a difference between what it is and what you interpret it to be in the effect. Your fart can make me laugh, but that does not make it a joke.
Why is multi-causal intent something magical that cannot be split into separated single intents? I say, if its multi, it can be made from parts. And a robot could also be built like that, why not?

About multi-causal intent, in the abstract meaning of "intent is roughly equal to Jungian functions":
Yes, you can mix any non-(polar-)opposites (such as Fi with Ti), in the same intent.
But you can't mix polar-opposites like Fe & Ti in the same intent. Because adding them equals zero/cancellation/void.

Even if you would have the magical ability to "change your type at will", to have Fe-intent in minute1 and Ti-intent in minute2, then you still cannot have both at the same moment in time, you could only alternate them in that case.

3. Originally Posted by Researcher
Why is multi-causal intent something magical that cannot be split into separated single intents?
Because in our experiment, where I show you that robots can be single-minded if they are so programmed, one intent is one intent.

Originally Posted by Researcher
Yes, you can mix any non-(polar-)opposites (such as Fi with Ti), in the same intent.
But you can't mix polar-opposites like Fe & Ti in the same intent.
According to an unproven theory derived from 19th century thinking about the human mind.

4. Originally Posted by Nicodemus
Because in our experiment, where I show you that robots can be single-minded if they are so programmed, one intent is one intent.
I didn't refute that. What is your point?

Originally Posted by Nicodemus
According to an unproven theory derived from 19th century thinking about the human mind.
The theory of opposites is more like "forgotten ancient knowledge", its not from the last 3 centuries.

I don't know your type, I could just be talking too much "Ti logical crap" to you if you are not a Ti-user, but all I am saying is that you can't "+1" and "-1" at the same time, because the effect is 0. And (+1)+(-1)=0 is not a theory but inborn (for me at least).

If you can agree with me on that last one, then the question is just if you believe that the Jungian model is a model based on opposites or not. (Hint: Jung was a pretty big fan of opposites)

5. Originally Posted by Researcher
I didn't refute that. What is your point?
Still the initial one, that one can use Ti without showing Fe. Your reliance on the theory of opposites seems to compel you to add -1 to any +1 you see even if and when +1 does not imply -1.

6. Originally Posted by Nicodemus
Still the initial one, that one can use Ti without showing Fe. Your reliance on the theory of opposites seems to compel you to add -1 to any +1 you see even if and when +1 does not imply -1.
Ok, I will do a last try to explain the idea. I will skip Jungian stuff, and just stay with the +1/-1 example:

If you +1 with container-object-1, it has to come from some other container-object-2 at which it goes -1.

Lets say you walk out of house1 and enter street1.
then you check-out of house1 (-1). And you check-in on street1 (+1). You basically do both at the same time.

However, in our limited mind: It is possible to do only one of both, since you can "ignore" the other half. However, reality or an "all-seeing mind of multiple different observers with multiple perspectives" would not ignore the other half.

So back to the fact that you go out of the house, there is 2 intents you could have had:
- leave house1 (and enter street1 by coincidence)
- enter street1 (and leave house1 by coincidence)

Now back to the robot, instead of you:
Let say your robot only has the intent of doing +1, e.g. enter street1, which will leave the shadow trail of -1 "leave house1".
Then in reality you could observe it as the robot really having that intent of +1: "enter street1". But you could also observe it differently and see its shadow trail as the true intent: Maybe you think that the robot didnt care about house1, so you could interpret it wrongly as -1:"The robot really wanted to leave house1".

It might not be so obvious right away, but there is a totally different motive for the action in each intent I just described.

So what I am trying to say is:
The actor really has only 1 intent (like the robot you described), but this is a perspective from one side. There is always a second unintended side. And the reason for this is because we humans split reality up in objects. Any action on an object has to have an opposite effect on some other object. (Which object you focus on depends on your perspective.)

7. I work with someone I think is an ENFP who has been diagnosed with Aspbergers. It's an interesting combination of traits because he has a great deal of insight into educational strategies and can think in terms of internal empathy. He struggled with certain subjects in school and has a hard time with certain types of follow through. He has hyper-focus in artistic areas and can be oblivious in others.

8. Originally Posted by Researcher
Ok, I will do a last try to explain the idea. I will skip Jungian stuff, and just stay with the +1/-1 example:

If you +1 with container-object-1, it has to come from some other container-object-2 at which it goes -1.

Lets say you walk out of house1 and enter street1.
then you check-out of house1 (-1). And you check-in on street1 (+1). You basically do both at the same time.

However, in our limited mind: It is possible to do only one of both, since you can "ignore" the other half. However, reality or an "all-seeing mind of multiple different observers with multiple perspectives" would not ignore the other half.

So back to the fact that you go out of the house, there is 2 intents you could have had:
- leave house1 (and enter street1 by coincidence)
- enter street1 (and leave house1 by coincidence)

Now back to the robot, instead of you:
Let say your robot only has the intent of doing +1, e.g. enter street1, which will leave the shadow trail of -1 "leave house1".
Then in reality you could observe it as the robot really having that intent of +1: "enter street1". But you could also observe it differently and see its shadow trail as the true intent: Maybe you think that the robot didnt care about house1, so you could interpret it wrongly as -1:"The robot really wanted to leave house1".

It might not be so obvious right away, but there is a totally different motive for the action in each intent I just described.
I understood the idea the first time. What I am say is that it is wrong. To test a theory, it makes sense to try to falsify it. Your example of leaving the house/entering the street seems to confirm it because it was chosen to do just that; but once you try to falsify it using a less favorable example, you will see how easily that can be done. What, for instance, is the 'shadow trail' to saying 'Hello' in an empty room or to developing a chess problem?

Originally Posted by Researcher
So what I am trying to say is:
The actor really has only 1 intent (like the robot you described), but this is a perspective from one side. There is always a second unintended side. And the reason for this is because we humans split reality up in objects. Any action on an object has to have an opposite effect on some other object. (Which object you focus on depends on your perspective.)
What you describe here sounds almost like causality. Naturally, the key word is 'opposite effect', which is not causality. Indeed, you said it is impossible to do Ti without showing Fe as well. Showing has a peculiar nature, because it pretends to depict what was intended, although we already established that one can do Ti without intending Fe; what you are really saying is that someone inclined to see Fe can see Fe where there is intended Ti, that is, can interpret Ti as having a shadow trail of Fe. Well, interpretations, being the subjective guess work they are, can be pretty much anything. I bet Ti can just as easily 'show' Te or Se or noodles if the interpreter is so inclined. As I said: Your reliance on the theory of opposites seems to compel you to add -1 to any +1 you see even if and when +1 does not imply -1.

9. Originally Posted by Nicodemus
we already established that one can do Ti without intending Fe
We? Who is we?

P.S. You obviously are trying to oppose. But its kind of funny, because by mistake, you actually did not oppose me. Because, it fits my theory perfectly that "one can do Ti and intend Ti", and obviously, "intend Ti" = "without intending Fe". So maybe WE can actually establish that

10. Originally Posted by Researcher
We? Who is we?

P.S. You obviously are trying to oppose. But its kind of funny, because by mistake, you actually did not oppose me. Because, it fits my theory perfectly that "one can do Ti and intend Ti", and obviously, "intend Ti" = "without intending Fe". So maybe WE can actually establish that
If you look back on our discussion, you will see that I never questioned what now in the above you pretend to be the whole of your argument. The point of contention is whether intending Ti inevitably shows Fe. You know, the big part of my last post you intentionally ignored. The wrong part.

I take it this retreat means you acknowledge your error.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO