User Tag List

First 15556364656667 Last

Results 641 to 650 of 721

Thread: Fe Fakeness

  1. #641
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    For those here that don't know what bayesian is. Google's Gmail spam filter is a good example. If you start marking messages from you friends as "Spam" -it's very bad for the system. As good stuff in the future will get blocked.

    Hence you need to start with "seed" data that is accurate and continue to build on a foundation of a priori knowledge.

  2. #642
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    *Bayesian... filter... still doesn't understand... how he's... using... "a priori"...*

  3. #643
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    *thinks... @five... really... needs to look up... the meaning... of... those... terms...*

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

  4. #644
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    @five

    I suspect that to some degree you know what you're talking about, but you're using your own words and analogies, apparently developed independently of any community that studies MBTI and function theory.

    I ran into the same sort of thing in software development with respect to "Design Patterns". In one respect, these patterns are useless to me: they don't help me figure out how to design software, because I do that largely intuitively, based on my requirements and how best to create a simple, efficient design. They do become useful to me in a very different respect, however, in that after having created a design, I can use standard language to describe what I've designed and why I've designed it that way, e.g., "Here is a facade, and this is a singleton, and up here we have a flywheel." So in a sentence with three key words, I've explained fairly complicated design concepts that would take hours of discussion. But because I've studied up on what things are called, and my colleagues have done likewise, we spend all of 5 minutes to understand the design, at which point possible changes/modifications become much easier to communicate.

    Read up in the forum archives on topics of concern to you, and figure out how your ideas translate into a more common language.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  5. #645
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    All NTJ's use a bayesian approach to truth.

    All NTP's use a frequentist approach to truth.

    The approach one uses is tied to cognitives functions. The cognitive functions one uses determines the person's type. Cognitives are neural circuitry in the brain. This is mapped out eventually in our DNA.

    I can't make it clearer.

    You are getting annoyed because you have no way to see the truth of what I'm saying. Your own approach is not a priori, so you cannot evaluate my statements with respect to a global framework only withing the conceptual framework of MBTI space. This is very limiting however.

    Classic Te vs Ti and Ne vs Ni.

    Also instead of getting personal at the perceived arrogance of tone on my part, how about simply asking what you don't understand in a more structured and precise way and separate out the feeling from your response so that truth may be entertained better.

    One can be arrogant in tone and humble in content. Or arrogant in content and humble in tone.

    Being arrogant in tone has no implication on the objective truth of the statements.
    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    It is rather arrogant to assume I'm arrogant. I merely pointed out the observation to continue to assert I'm the only INTJ around here and that has key relevance to the point I was making of bayesian (NTJ) vs frequentist (NTP).

    In a bayesian model the node are treated with different weights some exceedingly extreme. Thus if an ACTUAL INTJ is talking about INTJ's then that will count say 90% vs 10% of someone else who is probably not one. In this case we can assume node as person. Hence whatever I'm going to say will just be another data point in the NTP's view. And it all gets averaged out. NTP's use statistical views on everything,without even realising it, using their Si's and Ne's for the data.

    Now I'm not saying NTP's don't use bayesian approaches in the context of a model sometimes, but that is not their overall approach to EVERY piece of data coming in to their senses, it is not fundamental to the hardware, it is a emulated approach.

    Eg1 if I go to supper and someone is explaining a business idea it is getting evaluated from a bayesian approach. I may know absolutely nothing about the industry he is talking about but I can make insights based on a priori knowledge from other domains.

    If someone ask's me the if it's summer or winter, I take a bayesian approach to answer.
    If someone want's to know who will win the 2012 elections my answer is bayesian. You may have noticed I talk about "fundamentals" before. These are simply important nodes in the NTJ bayesian hierarchy.

    That is what gives NTJ's the confidence, the bayesian model just spits out an answer and its assumed "true" until proven otherwise. Proven otherwise, means shown evidence to cause the bayesian network to readjust itself to accomodate a learned fact.

    Any of this making sense to anyone?
    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    Here is another example.

    Let's say my buddy Cliff says: "Hey Jesus told me Steve Jobs died of AIDS actually not cancer"

    I will take a Bayesian approach to that fact. Here is what happens.

    Does Jesus exist?
    No (very strong node and high up in the hierachy)For Ti's sake No means 99.99% no etc.

    Is the condition "Jesus existing" necessary for the statement Cliff made, necessary to be true?
    Yes.

    Therefore ignore the statement. No information can be learned from it. Steve Jobs may or may not have died of AIDS, but what Cliff is saying takes us no nearer to the truth of that.
    Lastly, before one writes it off completely, can it be possible that actually Cliff is telling the truth?

    Possibly but then he'd have to produce extraordinary evidence because "Jesus exists" being true, would have a profound effect on all subnodes in the hierarchy and a major shift would have to take place and recalibration. Hence the push back will be strong against the statement will be strong. Hence the requirement for evidence must be extremely high.

    This will be viewed then by those that don't use a priori knowledge in everything they do to seem "arrogant" or "judgmental" etc or a whole slew of touchy feely things.

    That is how truth works for all NTJ's.

    I'm probably almost certainly maybe definitely bad at explaining things.
    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    NTJ's knowledge is built from the ground up. Imagine the effort required to move a large foundational slab of concrete sitting under the Empire State building.

    Those foundations are key nodes. the higher up the hierarchy, or lower down (if we using the building analogy). The more entrenched those nodes will be. So when you bring information to the party and it attacks those nodes you going to get a severe reaction if you bring shoddy claims.

    NTP's approach things in isolation. They look at a theory and dissect it to make sure it's internally consistent with itself (Ti). They may also wait for data from Si and Ne to test the strength of the theory. These theories exist for the most part in isolation of other theories.

    For the NTJ there is only one model of the reality. Theories just plug into a giant latticework and get absorbed as part of the bayesian network.

    Does this make any more sense?
    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    One can see how I operate and live and breath this. I don't have to pretend because it comes naturally to me.

    For example you can see how I used similar reasoning like the example I quoted above, to filter Zarathasura posts. My logic was his posts are not congruent with my Se experience of Ni Te users nor is his logic or style of debate etc. He has plenty of Fe and ego etc. He says he is one, which contradicts my bayesian network, I will rather ignore everything until that is resolved. Bayesian networks do not work well if the knowledge is polluted.

    So he could be an INTJ but then I'd have to throwout almost 10 years of my own experience in real life and re-evaluate so many things. Hence the burden on proof is rather on him. If he doesn't want to prove it, that's fine too, he goes on the the ignorelist.

    Now he of course would be welcome to do the same to me. But if he wants to engage it will be on mutual terms. My condition being that a person must accurately type themselves before I will consider what they are saying with regards to MBTI.

    I try to stick to that ideal, and will assume people type themselves correctly until evidence indicates to the contrary.

    That is not to say others aren't mistyping themselves as well, they probably are and I'm not just picking on Z. That is just a data point I can say for certain, there are plenty of less smart guys that aren't even on the radar.
    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    For those here that don't know what bayesian is. Google's Gmail spam filter is a good example. If you start marking messages from you friends as "Spam" -it's very bad for the system. As good stuff in the future will get blocked.

    Hence you need to start with "seed" data that is accurate and continue to build on a foundation of a priori knowledge.
    I see now what you mean. You are needlessly describing how you filter truth candidates through a coherence matrix that allows only those to pass on into consideration which are compatible with your fundamental convictions. Si does that; Ni does that. I believe everybody does that.

    You also said that evidence can persuade you to skip the coherence criterion, which is to say that statement-world correspondence can persuade you. After that, of course, the fundamental convictions need readjustment.

    So you favor a coherence-correspondence theory of truth.

    Do you consider your way of explaining all this effective?

  6. #646
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Gives mad respect to @Ginkgo for not only derailing the whole forum with this thread, but for producing a thread which, while derailing the whole forum, somehow managed to derail itself, rerail, and then derail again. We've got bonafide derail acrobatics goin on here.

  7. #647
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    I see now what you mean. You are needlessly describing how you filter truth candidates through a coherence matrix that allows only those to pass on into consideration which are compatible with your fundamental convictions. Si does that; Ni does that. I believe everybody does that.

    You also said that evidence can persuade you to skip the coherence criterion, which is to say that statement-world correspondence can persuade you. After that, of course, the fundamental convictions need readjustment.

    So you favor a coherence-correspondence theory of truth.

    Do you consider your way of explaining all this effective?
    Correspondence theory of truth is exactly how I see truth.

    Thanks, Yes I concur. No it's not effective. But together me and an INTP are work very well, though he is too lazy to come on here , because he just translates and has so much Si history of me it becomes a way we can collectively discover more truth and repackage. Together we have our own community in a sense. But its all in the real world and we use real world data and observations to make sure things stay accurate.

    That said when I do go into unknown territories even if what I'm saying makes sense, others do have a hard time understanding me, because of my lack of terminology or "way things are done" Si. That however does not change the fundamental objective truth of what I was saying, regardless of how eloquently or crudely it was put.

    It is possible to have a truth that or insight no-one else has had of course, but be unable to express it.

    I do see I was out of my depth in some ways, especially with regards to the language. Ni is like that. It doesn't have a common dictionary. I appreciate the help.

    What are other opinions on truth? Is there a divide? etc

    What is your own view on truth? What position do you take?

  8. #648
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    I see now what you mean. You are needlessly describing how you filter truth candidates through a coherence matrix that allows only those to pass on into consideration which are compatible with your fundamental convictions. Si does that; Ni does that. I believe everybody does that.

    You also said that evidence can persuade you to skip the coherence criterion, which is to say that statement-world correspondence can persuade you. After that, of course, the fundamental convictions need readjustment.

    So you favor a coherence-correspondence theory of truth.

    Do you consider your way of explaining all this effective?
    Also your response would seem to indicate that you gained no insights that were useful or interesting to you from my posts as you didn't indicate this.

    Is that true or accurate reflection? I'm asking not because I want emotional "yay"s, but because I'm curious so I can recalibrate my output in future.

  9. #649
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default


  10. #650
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    five, what do you intend by showing your chart? What does that prove?

Similar Threads

  1. [Fe] Any INFJs who think Fe is "fake"?
    By SilkRoad in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-26-2011, 12:42 AM
  2. [NF] Other NF's hate salespeople's fake Fe?
    By Lily flower in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-15-2011, 11:09 AM
  3. [Fe] Is Fe fake or manipulative?
    By jixmixfix in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 341
    Last Post: 08-05-2011, 11:28 PM
  4. [Fe] Fe is fake and manipulative (proofs inside)
    By INTP in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-21-2011, 01:04 AM
  5. [Fe] Fe: No cute title...I just don't get it
    By sakuraba in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 11-18-2008, 09:07 PM

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