User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 131

  1. #51
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    -Absent-Mindedness comes not from N but from an intense internal focus. More of a Ti property rather than Intuition.
    It depends on your type. INTP absent-mindedness comes from intense thinking. ENTP absent-mindedness comes pursuing the latest thing to the point that they forget simple details. All N's have a form of absent-mindedness but the reason is different. INTJ's absent-mindedness comes from the intense internal focus of intuition rather than the intense internal focus of thinking.

    -Regardless of that Newton was a physicist and not a philosopher he'd still be interested in the alogical as much as Sartre would be. The alogical ideas that he'd be interested in would be different from Sartre's because of their different interests, but nonetheless Newton's appreciation for alogical over the logical would manifest still.
    Perhaps you are referring to his interest in alchemy, or his idea of applying the scientific method on the Bible. He spent a good deal of time doing both. INTP's of that era were more interested in making their own philosophy. Newton was not like them.

    -Playing with ideas for the sake of imagination is not a strictly P thing, it is a strictly N thing. It appears to be a P thing only because NPs have their Intuition on the outside, NJs do the same thing internally.
    Yes, but the external manifestation looks different, and that is what I am getting at. Newton's imagination works like an INTJ, because he is an INTJ.

    So far your arguments are anecdotal, very common of a dominant Intuitor. I want to see hard logic, not just connections between ideas.
    Here's some logic. Consider the statement "P implies Q". If P is false then "P implies Q" is always true. In other words, the reason you think that you are always right is because your assumptions are wrong. This is very common for a dominant Thinker.

    Geez it's like you have to repeatedly shove the evidence right in their face until they get it. Yes, I understand for INTP's that it's frustrating to have to redo a whole theory that you've put so much time into, but that's just part of being INTP. I hate not being able to finish most of what I start, but at least as an ENTP I can admit my weaknesses.

    P.S

    What is so Ni-Teish about Descartes method?
    The whole process is Ni-Te. First you have to consider the biggest weakness in the scientific method is that it doesn't tell you how to come up with a good hypothesis. Good intuition makes the whole process so much quicker and more efficient, so this point right there makes it favor dominant intuition, either ENTP or INTJ.

    Now that you have your hypothesis you have to perform the experiment, which always has lots more details than are ever discussed in the theory: reducing noise, accounting for quirks in the instruments, etc.... Ni does a better job of keeping all of these details in mind than Ne does. Then you have to take accurate measurements. That is pure Te.

    Also the scientific method is about discovering that which is in the natural world. That is Te. "I've discovered electricity". Well Ben you're talking like an INTJ, because you are thinking about the external world. There is a reason why you find INTJ scientists in a lab while INTP's prefer to sit behind a desk. INTJ's are best suited to discover via the scientific method.


    Though..even when selecting axioms..logic still should be the judge of all our Intuitions..
    Logic plays a very limited role in selecting good axioms. All it can really do is check for contradictions. Anyone who has studied enough math knows you can easily change axioms and create a variety of contradiction-free thought systems.

    Reality only has one "true" set of axioms though. That is why intuition is such an important part of discovering them. Logic can only check for contradictions or draw conclusion from the axioms, but it is very weak in discovering what they are.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  2. #52
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    I'll agree that Intuition comes in very handy at selecting hypothesis, yet I'd still say logic probably plays a bigger role than you'd think.

    You will use Intuition to do most of the work, that is true--but what I am thinking is that Intuition will merely send you in the appropriate direction. To further chart your course on the specific level, you will need to apply logic.

    Suppose I do an experiment on typology. And I posit as a hypothesis that Intuitors are more likely to be diplomatic than sensors. (I am trying to figure out the most diplomatic types). It all started with an Intuitive hunch for me that Intuitors are more likely to be diplomatic than sensors, but then I use pure reasoning to ask myself why I had this intuition.

    Then I explain to myself that it is very important for you to see both sides when you're trying to be diplomatic, and I know that Intuitors(based on my abstract knowledge (intuition) I know that Ns see the big picture better. And then, suddenly my Intuition connects seeing the big picture clearly with understanding both sides. I dont know why I did this, just that my imagination for some reason thinks that there is a connection.

    Ok, so at this point I will agree with you that Intuition is basically in the driving seat, logic plays a small role, at best it can help you check for contradictions. But thats not that small of a role. If Intuition is the engine and logic the the steering wheel, your mind will be running wild if you dont apply logic. Hence, you will never find the right axioms unless you analyze what your Intuition has just given you and how this connects to the bigger picture.

    Intuition gives you raw ideas, but only a judging function can make sense of them, can recognize them for what they are and show you how what you have connects to your objective.

    I agree that INTJs are better suited than ENTPs for the scientific method. Ni is more adept at keeping in mind the information that you need and pursuing the intended course, Nis are indeed the chart the course type. And as for following the plan accurately and thoroughly, that is indeed very Teish. So TJs are more likely to make accurate assessments based on empirical evidence than TPs. Also Tes would be able to keep a better focus on just the necessary Intuitions, whilst the TPs would get distracted by extraneous data because their Thinking will not focus entirely on the external goal like TJs would but would actually pay more heed to the internal.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  3. #53
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    I'll agree that Intuition comes in very handy at selecting hypothesis, yet I'd still say logic probably plays a bigger role than you'd think.

    You will use Intuition to do most of the work, that is true--but what I am thinking is that Intuition will merely send you in the appropriate direction. To further chart your course on the specific level, you will need to apply logic.

    Suppose I do an experiment on typology. And I posit as a hypothesis that Intuitors are more likely to be diplomatic than sensors. (I am trying to figure out the most diplomatic types). It all started with an Intuitive hunch for me that Intuitors are more likely to be diplomatic than sensors, but then I use pure reasoning to ask myself why I had this intuition.

    Then I explain to myself that it is very important for you to see both sides when you're trying to be diplomatic, and I know that Intuitors(based on my abstract knowledge (intuition) I know that Ns see the big picture better. And then, suddenly my Intuition connects seeing the big picture clearly with understanding both sides. I dont know why I did this, just that my imagination for some reason thinks that there is a connection.

    Ok, so at this point I will agree with you that Intuition is basically in the driving seat, logic plays a small role, at best it can help you check for contradictions. But thats not that small of a role. If Intuition is the engine and logic the the steering wheel, your mind will be running wild if you dont apply logic. Hence, you will never find the right axioms unless you analyze what your Intuition has just given you and how this connects to the bigger picture.
    Well it is true that logic can be useful in picking axioms, because they can give you an idea if you are starting down a good path. If the logical conclusion of the axioms cannot be considered useful, then the axioms are not really good axioms.

    Intuition gives you raw ideas, but only a judging function can make sense of them, can recognize them for what they are and show you how what you have connects to your objective.

    I agree that INTJs are better suited than ENTPs for the scientific method. Ni is more adept at keeping in mind the information that you need and pursuing the intended course, Nis are indeed the chart the course type. And as for following the plan accurately and thoroughly, that is indeed very Teish. So TJs are more likely to make accurate assessments based on empirical evidence than TPs. Also Tes would be able to keep a better focus on just the necessary Intuitions, whilst the TPs would get distracted by extraneous data because their Thinking will not focus entirely on the external goal like TJs would but would actually pay more heed to the internal.
    Very true that INTJ's are more suited than ENTP's to the scientific method. Therefore it's even more true that INTJ's are better suited to the scientific method than INTP's. Either type of intuition is good for forming hypotheses. Although you are right that for an ENTP, they might intend to study physics, but instead create a hypothesis for biology, or maybe a new recipe for pot roast, or hey what's that over there....
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  4. #54

    Default

    I think Ghenghis Khan would have to be #1.

    He conquered more land mass than anyone in history before or since. If he didn't devastate the Muslim world, the rise of Europe after the 14th century wouldn't have occured. The Muslim world was on the verge of spreading west into Europe. They rejoiced greatly when the more advanced and populous Muslim world was destroyed by the Mongols.

    He controlled Russia for 500 years. Has something like 16 million living male descendents (which implies 32 million, if you include women). He spread Asian technology to Europe (which at the time was significantly ahead of the west). It would be unthinkable to imagine the current world without his impact. I don't think the scientific revolution and the colonization of the new world would have happened (in the manner or speed); if the Muslims were't set back 500 years.

    Guttenburg is overrated. Printing was in china first (too bad they didn't have a phoenetic alphabet). Metal movable type was in Korea 400 years before Guttenburg.

  5. #55
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    Whoever shot Archduke Ferdinand.
    Gavrilo Princep, anarchist.

    I learned that in 9th grade World History, and that particular little fact has clung to my brain like lint in a belly button ever since.

  6. #56
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Reality only has one "true" set of axioms though.
    Is that one of them?

  7. #57

    Default

    I also think Copernicus was overrated. There is dispute whether he was the originator of those ideas. Even if he came up with his breakthroughs independently, I think those ideas (along with Galilleo's) were evolutionary, not revolutionary. Someone would have eventually figured those things out.

    Einstein and Newton/Liebniz, I think of as revolutionary. Although I think we would have eventually figured out newtonian mechanics, it probably would have taken much, much longer.


    "The Indian astronomer-mathematician Aryabhata (476– 550), in his magnum opus Aryabhatiya, propounded a mathematical heliocentric model in which the Earth was taken to be spinning on its axis and the periods of the planets were given with respect to a stationary Sun. He was also the first to discover that the light from the Moon and the planets were reflected from the Sun, and that the planets follow an elliptical orbit around the Sun, and thus propunded an eccentric elliptical model of the planets, on which he accurately calculated many astronomical constants, such as the times of the solar and lunar eclipses, and the instantaneous motion of the Moon (expressed as a differential equation). Arabic translations of Aryabhata's Aryabhatiya were available from the 8th century, while Latin translations were available from the 13th century, before Copernicus had written De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, so it's quite likely that Aryabhata's work had an influence on Copernicus' ideas."

  8. #58
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanlittlechimp View Post
    I think Ghenghis Khan would have to be #1.
    I think this would be the best so far. I guess part of it comes from the concept that ideas that were generated by multiple people would of been discovered either way, making the person behind them less impressive than someone who actually steered history, like Khan.

    If we measure influence as in "if removed, how much of an impact...", then Khan would be my favorite. If we measure influence as "who contributed most to this present reality", I could see an argument for the thinkers... but even so, I think the "actors" would dominate.

  9. #59
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    I don't think you can pick a scientist as "most influential." If you took any one scientist out of history, two more would replace him. The vital thing for the sciences is that there has to be the right societal conditions to enable science to exist.

    For example, you have to have an economy above the subsistence level, as scientists generally don't earn their keep in the short term, not in the same sense that a shoemaker or a cooper or a tanner does. He can double as a teacher, but that again implies that you have an economy sufficiently advanced to support professional teachers. That further implies job specialization, a certain minimum population density, and a degree of wealth.

    If any one person could be pointed to as having established such conditions over a large area for an extended period, thus facilitating scientific and cultural advances that amounted to genuine gains in the long term, then I would say that's the person considered most influential.

    There are many such candidates that I can think of right off the top of my head, but consider for a moment Henry VIII of England. Among other things, he rebuilt the authority of the English monarchy from a time of low ebb under his predecessor, he established the Office of the Exchecquer as a function of the crown (pioneering the use of double-entry accounting in the process), and invented the naval gunship (as a desperation measure to defend England against the much larger navies of the continent).

    He was the prime mover behind the English Reformation (for better or for worse) and for that reason he would become, through cause-and-effect down through time, an enabler of the founding of the USA. Though the time immediately following his death was one of great upheaval, he left one of his daughters the tools to create in England a golden age of arts, culture, and scientific achievement. We remember her as Elizabeth I.

    (Along the way, of course, he had two wives and numerous courtiers executed, and probably had syphilis. Remember, we're going for "most influential," not "most popular" or "most admirable.")

  10. #60

    Default

    I am taking the meaning of "influential" in this case to mean someone whose absence would result in a very different world than the one we now live in. Keeping that in mind, here are a few that haven't been mentioned:

    Wernher von Braun
    Abraham Lincoln
    John F. Kennedy/Nikita Khruschev
    John Maynard Keynes
    Jack Kilby/Robert Noyce

    I know they've all done their noteworthy work in the last 150 years, but I thought the earlier times were well represented.

Similar Threads

  1. Most overused phrases of the last 5 years
    By Elfboy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 261
    Last Post: 09-20-2015, 10:59 PM
  2. Wth? How come I'm not the Advocate's person of the year? srsly
    By Beorn in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-17-2013, 07:18 PM
  3. The Guts of the Last Priest
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-22-2011, 08:07 AM
  4. What you've learned about the theory of personalities in the last 6 months?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 01:26 AM
  5. December 31st, 2008 Conjunctions - Last chance of the year...
    By runvardh in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-30-2008, 11:59 AM

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