• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

25quiz MBTI test

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I can play that game too. A--> B means that A implies B, not that B is a necessary condition for A.

Well it means the same thing then. (The existence of) Feeling implies (the existence of) emotion, and social relationships and values imply emotional attachments. "Implies" means that A is a sufficient condition for B, which means that if you have A you must have B. Everyday language weakens this to mean "strongly suggests," but that doesn't contradict my point, it only makes it say something weaker. Regardless, there's an association, and I'm trying to say there is a necessary association.

Whatever system of language you use, the argument remains the same.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well it means the same thing then. (The existence of) Feeling implies (the existence of) emotion, and social relationships and values imply emotional attachments. "Implies" means that A is a sufficient condition for B, which means that if you have A you must have B. Everyday language weakens this to mean "strongly suggests," but that doesn't contradict my point, it only makes it say something weaker. Regardless, there's an association, and I'm trying to say there is a necessary association.

Whatever system of language you use, the argument remains the same.

"A is a sufficient condition for B, which means that if you have A you must have B" is wrong, and its not a question of language or semantics. The first clause denotes sufficiency; in the second clause, "must have" implies necessity. There is a big difference, conceptually and not semantically.

This mistake, along with others like it, explains why I have doubted that you are an INTP, and from your first OP on your type I thought you were INFJ with tertiary Ti.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
"A is a sufficient condition for B, which means that if you have A you must have B" is wrong, and its not a question of language or semantics. The first clause denotes sufficiency; in the second clause, "must have" implies necessity. There is a big difference, conceptually and not semantically.

This mistake, along with others like it, explains why I have doubted that you are an INTP, and from your first OP on your type I thought you were INFJ with tertiary Ti.

It's not wrong. I took a formal logic class and got an A in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
Necessary and sufficient conditions in conditional statements describe the relationship between the antecedent and the consequent.

If a faulty idea about how formal logic works causes you to inaccurately assess my logical skills, and that's the only thing causing you to type me one thing rather than another, perhaps you should reconsider. But I don't care.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's not wrong. I took a formal logic class and got an A in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
Necessary and sufficient conditions in conditional statements describe the relationship between the antecedent and the consequent.

If a faulty idea about how formal logic works causes you to inaccurately assess my logical skills, and that's the only thing causing you to type me one thing rather than another, perhaps you should reconsider. But I don't care.

It would be wiser to cite the exact location in that Wiki article which explains why your logic is correct. Also, getting an A in a logic class does not entail your being correct in any particular argument.

And, "A is a sufficient condition for B, which means that if you have A you must have B" would be more accurately written, "A is a sufficient condition for B, which means that if you have B you must have A."
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Whatever my type may be, and whether or not you agree with the system of notation I used to express my argument, can you adequately argue with the following, or are our fine discussions of the feeling function going to be put into the graveyard for off topic posts? I am arguing this because the loose (though necessary) association is why they have questions on tests conflating the two, but I am agreeing with another poster that the association is too strong and the questions should be reworded. It's too strong because they are confusing an existential necessity with some sort of direct correlation. The existence of emotions in general being a necessary condition for Feeling (which everyone has) doesn't mean that whenever a person makes a feeling judgment s/he is feeling an emotion, except in a fundamental underlying sense, meaning that person has emotional attachments to things- not in the sense of being physiologically aroused at that moment.

So point number 1: Feeling does not equal emotion.
Point number 2: Feeling is more associated with emotion than thinking.
3: This is true because: The existence of emotion in people in general, over the course of the lifespan, is necessary for feeling judgments.
Well, think about it: everything is based to some extent on emotion, because it's our instinctual reaction to our environment. It gauges the quality of relationships. Feeling judgments and values wouldn't exist without emotions. Values and social connections are based on emotional attachments. Emotion is necessary for Feeling (both Fe and Fi, and Feeling in general), but not for Thinking in the strictly logical sense, although it is necessary for judgements based on objective values. So emotion is still more associated with Feeling.

(Social relationships & values) require emotional attachments
Feeling requires emotion
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It would be wiser to cite the exact location in that Wiki article which explains why your logic is correct. Also, getting an A in a logic class does not entail your being correct in any particular argument.
It doesn't entail it, but it implies it. ;)

Here's the link again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
Here's another one from a more credible source:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/

And, "A is a sufficient condition for B, which means that if you have A you must have B" would be more accurately written, "A is a sufficient condition for B, which means that if you have B you must have A."
Incorrect.

Edit:
exact location in that Wiki article
Well, I don't know how to do that. Sorry. The one from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is pretty easy to follow.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It doesn't entail it, but it implies it. ;)

Here's the link again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
Here's another one from a more credible source:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/


Incorrect.

Edit:

Well, I don't know how to do that. Sorry. The one from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is pretty easy to follow.

I liked the part of the Wiki article which showed that A --> B means "A implies B," just as I said.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Whatever my type may be, and whether or not you agree with the system of notation I used to express my argument, can you adequately argue with the following, or are our fine discussions of the feeling function going to be put into the graveyard for off topic posts? I am arguing this because the loose (though necessary) association is why they have questions on tests conflating the two, but I am agreeing with another poster that the association is too strong and the questions should be reworded. It's too strong because they are confusing an existential necessity with some sort of direct correlation. The existence of emotions in general being a necessary condition for Feeling (which everyone has) doesn't mean that whenever a person makes a feeling judgment s/he is feeling an emotion, except in a fundamental underlying sense, meaning that person has emotional attachments to things- not in the sense of being physiologically aroused at that moment.

So point number 1: Feeling does not equal emotion.
Point number 2: Feeling is more associated with emotion than thinking.
3: This is true because: The existence of emotion in people in general, over the course of the lifespan, is necessary for feeling judgments.

Thanks for making your argument clearer this time. I don't see any difference between an emotion and a feeling-judgment. Because when you have an emotion about something, this was always preceded by a subconscious judgment or evaluation.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I liked the part of the Wiki article which showed that A --> B means "A implies B," just as I said.

And you are entirely missing the point which is that implication in formal logic means a certain relationship between the antecedent and the consequent. But if you want to shut off your Ne to protect your Ti, I can't stop you.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
And you are entirely missing the point which is that implication in formal logic means a certain relationship between the antecedent and the consequent. But if you want to shut off your Ne to protect your Ti, I can't stop you.

And I don't see any reason for you to lower yourself to ad hominem.

Of course the idea of an "implication" implies some kind of relationship between antecedent and consequent. I have already stated what that is. All I'm saying is that "A implies B" does not mean that A is sufficient for B.

For example, the Socrates naming in Wikipedia. To be named "Socrates" implies that someone was first given a name. S --> N. But to be named, it is sufficient for that person to be named something, but not necessarily to be named "Socrates."
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
This thread has turned into an interesting discussion containing a great amount of much about nothing. < Let that one break your logic filter.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Thanks for making your argument clearer this time. I don't see any difference between an emotion and a feeling-judgment. Because when you have an emotion about something, this was always preceded by a subconscious judgment or evaluation.

I do think there is a difference, as was described by Jung, but I agree with the above.
This thread has turned into an interesting discussion containing a great amount of much about nothing. < Let that one break your logic filter.
And this.

And I don't see any reason for you to lower yourself to ad hominem.
Don't worry, I'm not attacking you. I'm just making an observation that you appear to me to be doing what I've read about INTP's when they stop taking in new information.
Of course the idea of an "implication" implies some kind of relationship between antecedent and consequent. I have already stated what that is. All I'm saying is that "A implies B" does not mean that A is sufficient for B.

For example, the Socrates naming in Wikipedia. To be named "Socrates" implies that someone was first given a name. S --> N. But to be named, it is sufficient for that person to be named something, but not necessarily to be named "Socrates."

No, it means that to be named Socrates is sufficient to have a name. You have it backwards.

Ok, here:
The front door is locked. In order to open it (in a normal, non-violent way) and get into the house, I must first use my key. A necessary condition of opening the door, without violence, then, is to use the key. So it seems true that

If I opened the door, I used the key.

Can we use the truth-functional understanding of “if” to propose that the consequent of any conditional (in (i), the consequent is “I used the key”) specifies a necessary condition for the truth of the antecedent (in (i), “I opened the door”)? Many logic and critical thinking texts use just such an approach, and for convenience we may call it “the standard theory” (see Blumberg 1976, pp. 133–4, Hintikka and Bachman 1991, p. 328 for examples of this approach).

The standard theory makes use of the fact that in classical logic, the truth-function “p ⊃ q” (“If p, q”) is false only when p is true and q is false. The relation between “p” and “q” in this case is often referred to as material implication. On this account of “if p, q”, if the conditional “p ⊃ q” is true, and p holds, then q also holds; likewise if q fails to be true, then p must also fail of truth (if the conditional as a whole is to be true). The standard theory thus claims that when the conditional “p ⊃ q” is true the truth of the consequent, “q”, is necessary for the truth of the antecedent, “p”, and the truth of the antecedent is in turn sufficient for the truth of the consequent. This relation between necessary and sufficient conditions matches the formal equivalence between a conditional formula and its contrapositive (“~q ⊃ ~p” is the contrapositive of “p ⊃ q”). Descending from talk of truth of statements to speaking about states of affairs, we can equally correctly say, on the standard theory, that using the key was necessary for opening the door.

Given the standard theory, necessary and sufficient conditions are converses of each other, and so there is a kind of mirroring or reciprocity between the two: B's being a necessary condition of A is equivalent to A's being a sufficient condition of B (and vice versa). So it seems that any truth-functional conditional sentence states both a sufficient and a necessary condition as well. Suppose that if Nellie is an elephant, then she has a trunk. Being an elephant is a sufficient condition of her having a trunk; having a trunk in turn is a necessary condition of Nellie's being an elephant. Indeed, the claim about the necessary condition is simply another way of putting the claim about the sufficient condition, just as the contrapositive of a formula is logically equivalent to the original formula.
(from the SEP article)
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I do think there is a difference, as was described by Jung, but I agree with the above.

And this.


Don't worry, I'm not attacking you. I'm just making an observation that you appear to me to be doing what I've read about INTP's when they stop taking in new information.


No, it means that to be named Socrates is sufficient to have a name. You have it backwards.

Ok, here:

(from the SEP article)

"Having a trunk in turn is a necessary condition of Nellie's being an elephant." So an elephant without a trunk, sad as that would be, is not an elephant?

And I didn't stop taking in information. This logic stuff isn't new information to me. For example, saying you're right just because you got an A in Logic is an example of bad logic and you didn't dispute it, because you know I'm right about that. And it doesn't speak very highly of the educational system these days.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yes....but by context I'd say this was a very small...sad....greenish creature squatting in the corner of a something.

Sounds like you're describing [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]'s avatar.
 
Top