User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 95

Thread: Common Folkways

  1. #51
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Plausible vs. implausible is not an objective science. It's subject to opinion...
    If it was subject to an opinion, there would be no difference between a good hypothesis and a bad one. Scientists could legitimately start with any conjecture for their experiment and expect the same results in all cases.

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Large portions of psychology academia find Jung's personality theories entirely implausible--you may disagree, but that doesn't make you objectively correct.
    They find him irrelevant more than implausible. He describes mind-states rather than observable behaviors, hence psychologists tend to have little interest in his work. Very few of them even tried to refute his views as in order to do so, they would have to step outside of the boundaries of the discipline of psychology.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It cannot be non-subjective if you yourself invented the term and are the only one that seems to take it particularly seriously....
    Its not subjective if it has a plausible argument to support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Ti dominant people have a habit of overestimating the objectivity of their own positions. They're just so certain that their idea of what constitutes logical consistency is indisputable that they delude themselves into believing that their own ideas constitute objective truth.....
    How many of them do this? All, 50%, some? What empirical studies can you cite for this? Your claim is about people, not cognitive tendencies, so it requires empirical support.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Again, evaluation of the merit of your arguments on any topic that lacks empirical evidence is a purely subjective endeavor, no matter how much faith you have in the supposed objective superiority of your own internal reasoning. .....
    In that case your remark about my view is also purely subjective as it lacks empirical support. There is no reason to discover which of us is right and which of us is wrong, as this is all subjective or arbitrary. In fact, there is no reason for us to even continue a conversation if any non-empirically supported argument is arbitrary. Your own conclusion has the implication that your response to my post is subjective or arbitrary and therefore completely without merit.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The definition of what constitutes "good argument" is subjective. .
    No, logical consistency of an argument and the nature of its premises matter. Some arguments lack consistency and aren't founded on premises that are likely true. Yet, others are. That is what separates a good argument from a bad one. A person's opinion about the matter is altogether irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    So... why do you bother then??
    I don't bother. Nothing of what I post describes human behavior or aspires to predict their future actions.



    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I think therefore I am, but because he is, does he necessarily think?
    Yes, because he found an indubitable premise. The fact that he percieves that he thinks ipso facto shows that some kind of cognition exists in his mind.
    "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/

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    And MBTI is folk psychology.
    And also folk typology.
    "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
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I don't bother. Nothing of what I post describes human behavior or aspires to predict their future actions.
    So why waste all of our time with it?

    Yes, because he found an indubitable premise. The fact that he percieves that he thinks ipso facto shows that some kind of cognition exists in his mind.
    How do you know that?

  4. #54
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    So why waste all of our time with it?hat?
    To put typology in its proper place. Its a pseudo-science and not even vaguely reminiscent of a discipline fit to describe and predict human behavior. If you are on this forum to understand how people behave and to figure out what they may do in the future, you are wasting your time. I can extend my best courtesy to you by informing you of the state of the case.





    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    How do you know that?
    Consider this example. In principle, if I think there is a table in front of me, I cannot be certain that there is. I can be deceived for a number of reasons. However, could I truly be deceived about the fact that I think there is a table in front of me? I can be mistaken about the nature of the external world, but how can I be mistaken about what my perception of the external world is? In the case of Descartes, there is no doubt that I think that I think, however, there may be a doubt about what it means to think. Or whether 'I am' as I don't know what 'I' am just by thinking. However, what I clearly know is that something does exist because I perceive thinking. When we are referring to something, we presuppose that it exists. That is Kant's famous insight that existence is not a predicate. So, if thought is broadly defined as any cognition, and I perceive that I have cognition going on in my mind, it follows that I am indeed engaging in some kind of cognition or thinking.

    Anyhow, to give a straight-forward answer to your question or how I know that I really think. Since I cannot be wrong about the fact that I think that I think, or my own perception of my own thinking, it follows that since I have a perception of some kind, I by definition, engage in a certain kind of a cognition. Perception, as you may see is by definition a cognition. All I need in order to prove that 'thinking' exists is to furnish indubitable evidence that some kind of a perception exists, which is easy enough to do.
    "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/

  5. #55
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    How many of them do this? All, 50%, some? What empirical studies can you cite for this? Your claim is about people, not cognitive tendencies, so it requires empirical support.
    An INTP asking for empirical support. Oh my!

  6. #56
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    If it was subject to an opinion, there would be no difference between a good hypothesis and a bad one. Scientists could legitimately start with any conjecture for their experiment and expect the same results in all cases.
    No, because a bad hypothesis will be refuted by the evidence discovered in experimentation. The difference is that typology isn't supported by any experimental data.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Of course they do, Jung's work is not even psychology at all. It describes cognitive processes rather than observable behaviors. This is of very little service to contemporary psychology.
    So being a psychologist necessitates that one will find all subject matter unrelated to psychology implausible? That's interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Its not subjective if it has a plausible argument to support it.
    So what about people who disagree that your argument for it is plausible? They're just objectively wrong, and you're objectively right?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    How many of them do this? All, 50%, some? What empirical studies can you cite for this? Your claim is about people, not cognitive tendencies, so it requires empirical support.
    The comment about Ti people constitutes only my own subjective opinion. Some share it and others don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    In that case your remark about my view is also purely subjective as it lacks empirical support. There is no reason to discover which of us is right and which of us is wrong, as this is all subjective or arbitrary. In fact, there is no reason for us to even continue a conversation if any non-empirically supported argument is arbitrary. Your own conclusion has the implication that your response to my post is subjective or arbitrary and therefore completely without merit.
    Indeed, that comment was subjective--but being subjective doesn't necessitate that it's entirely without merit. The whole field of philosophy consists largely of subjective argumentation, and its merit is in considering different possible viewpoints and perspectives. Never will you find any philosophical position that is objectively verifiable--no one can show conclusively that one person's philosophy is more correct than another's, and yet, philosophical study still has merit for the purpose of considering alternate perspectives.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    No, logical consistency of an argument and the nature of its premises matter. Some arguments lack consistency and aren't founded on premises that are likely true. Yet, others are. That is what separates a good argument from a bad one. A person's opinion about the matter is altogether irrelevant.
    The logic that leads from a set of premises to a conclusion may not be subjective, but the premises themselves virtually always are. Subjectivity must inevitably enter the picture because you have no way of proving the veracity of your premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I don't bother. Nothing of what I post describes human behavior or aspires to predict their future actions.
    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    If you are on this forum to understand how people behave and to figure out what they may do in the future, you are wasting your time.

    Forgive me if I don't give much weight to the opinion of an antisocial INTP with Asperger's on the topic of how to interact with others or predict their behaviors. You seem to have assumed that the entire concept of behavioral typology is totally invalid, but on what grounds? Because you're socially incompetent and don't understand how to use it effectively?

    You think everyone who uses "folk typology" to create models for explaining the motivations of others is just an imbecile wasting his time on a totally worthless pursuit, but did you ever consider that maybe some of this actually helps people learn to interact better with others/understand the needs and perspectives of others more effectively?

    Why is it that you think people use "folk typology", anyway? And why is it that so many people find it useful? Is it just one big mass delusion, or are you missing out on something useful and declaring it useless due to bias produced by your own social ineptitude?

    The problem with your "purely cognitive tendencies" approach is that it depends on Jung's subjective interpretations of the mechanisms governing the cognitive tendencies in others. Since Jung was unable to directly observe the cognitive tendencies of others without observing their behaviors and using them to attempt subjectively to infer the cognitive tendencies of the human mind, their behaviors were ultimately the original source of Jung's ideas on cognitive tendencies!

    How did Jung come up with his theories regarding cognitive tendencies, anyway? He observed the behaviors of others and attempted to infer what he believed to be the cognitive tendencies representative of them. This required subjective interpretation of the behaviors of others--which creates subjectivity in the premises you use in your typological arguments.

    Behavior is the only method we have of observing the tendencies of others, so all of your ideas regarding cognitive tendencies are rooted in observation of human behavior in the first place, a fact you continually gloss over in your misguided attempts to describe cognitive tendencies of others without reference to behavior. You can't observe cognitive tendencies in a vacuum; behavioral observation is the only way to even infer their existence in others.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #57
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    And it doesn't matter if it doesn't accurately describe humans as they exist, or predict behavior?
    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Unfortunately not. As far as describing human behavior, typology is almost completely worthless. Psychology is the proper study for that matter.
    Perhaps I'm either misunderstanding or failing to follow the logic.

    Unconscious tendencies which are ingrained in the psyche would logically appear to be a significant factor influencing behavior and personality. How would typology be utterly worthless in this regard? It would seem to have practical utility - to help you to understand others and give you some ideas on how someone may think or act. It is imprecise to be sure but I fail to see why there is no value. Again, I may be misunderstanding the post.

    Something does not have to be perfect in order to be useful.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  8. #58
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    To put typology in its proper place. Its a pseudo-science and not even vaguely reminiscent of a discipline fit to describe and predict human behavior. If you are on this forum to understand how people behave and to figure out what they may do in the future, you are wasting your time. I can extend my best courtesy to you by informing you of the state of the case.
    So, why are you wasting YOUR time with this? Wouldn't a one-shot post be sufficient to make this point, and allow you to go on your way toward more beneficial activities?

    Or does that have nothing to do with the true reason you're on here?

    Consider this example. In principle, if I think there is a table in front of me, I cannot be certain that there is. I can be deceived for a number of reasons. However, could I truly be deceived about the fact that I think there is a table in front of me?
    Yes. For one, we don't have a working definition of what "thinking" is, beyond some a priori principle you expect me to agree with based on perceived common experience. Secondly, this doesn't take into account known time lags in human cognition - as such, you have no basis to compare what you interpret to be a fact about thought, and what that thought actually was - several points of influence may exist within the cognitive pathway.

    I can be mistaken about the nature of the external world, but how can I be mistaken about what my perception of the external world is? In the case of Descartes, there is no doubt that I think that I think, however, there may be a doubt about what it means to think. Or whether 'I am' as I don't know what 'I' am just by thinking. However, what I clearly know is that something does exist because I perceive thinking.
    Yes, yourself. That's it.

    When we are referring to something, we presuppose that it exists. That is Kant's famous insight that existence is not a predicate. So, if thought is broadly defined as any cognition, and I perceive that I have cognition going on in my mind, it follows that I am indeed engaging in some kind of cognition or thinking.
    That famous insight is also an escape hatch.

    Anyhow, to give a straight-forward answer to your question or how I know that I really think. Since I cannot be wrong about the fact that I think that I think, or my own perception of my own thinking, it follows that since I have a perception of some kind, I by definition, engage in a certain kind of a cognition. Perception, as you may see is by definition a cognition. All I need in order to prove that 'thinking' exists is to furnish indubitable evidence that some kind of a perception exists, which is easy enough to do.
    But you never answered my question - because he is, does he think?

  9. #59
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    There is no novel scientific investigation in the business of typological inquiry; almost none of it includes an inquiry that is even reminiscent to the empirical inquiry common to psychology, sociology or anthropology. It is nearly exclusively about discovering the proper logical relations between faculties of the human mind that Jung has already discovered.
    Jung didn't "discover" anything; he simply suggested one possible subjective interpretation of the cognitive tendencies of humans--which makes all study from a Jungian perspective fundamentally subjective. He didn't back it up with any science and he had no proof that any of his ideas represent real biological processes.

    This is why the field of psychology doesn't take typology very seriously. Most of us (the "folk typologists" you are so fond of condescending to) simply accept that it's imperfect, subjective, and arbitrary--but still find some value in it as a way of conceptualizing the differences between our own perspectives and those of others.

    But your continual self-righteous insistence that your interpretations of cognition somehow constitute objectively superior methodology is outrageous. All typology, whether of the Jungian or folk variety, is a product of subjective interpretation of biological processes that science has not yet reached anything resembling a full understanding of yet.

    Yes, it is obvious that everyone thinks, feels, senses and intuits, but the nature of and relationships between these functions described in Jung's text are simply his own subjective interpretations of the dynamics between them, and in no way constitute indubitable fact.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #60
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    No, because a bad hypothesis will be refuted by the evidence discovered in experimentation. The difference is that typology isn't supported by any experimental data..
    You missed the point. A good hypothesis is one that is highly like to be corroborated by empirical evidence. If all non-empirical data was subjective or arbitary, there would be no difference between a plausible and an implausible hypothesis.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So being a psychologist necessitates that one will find all subject matter unrelated to psychology implausible? That's interesting...
    It necessitates that he will find it irrelevant to his professional discipline just as modern psychologists deemed Jung's work impertinent. Did you ever get a BA? Your reading comprehension is terrible.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So what about people who disagree that your argument for it is plausible? They're just objectively wrong, and you're objectively right?...
    Have them advance their arguments, then we can see which is more plausible.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The comment about Ti people constitutes only my own subjective opinion. Some share it and others don't. ?...
    Then it is worthless by definition.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The whole field of philosophy consists largely of subjective argumentation, and its merit is in considering different possible viewpoints and perspectives.?...
    I was a philosophy major. None of the arguments are subjective or relevant to perspective. They are all true or false by definition. At first they are recognized as plausible or implausible on the basis of their logical consistency and known empirical facts about the world. Objective arguments are ones that are consistent and based on reasonable premises, subjective arguments are basically non-sense. They are either inconsistent or founded on misguided premises. Next time restrict your comments about what you know next to nothing about to a minimum.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Never will you find any philosophical position that is objectively verifiable--no one can show conclusively that one person's philosophy is more correct than another's, and yet, philosophical study still has merit for the purpose of considering alternate perspectives..?...
    Non-sense. The work of astronomers, psychologists and even natural scientists was addressed by philosophers first. Aristotle was arguably the first philosopher to publish on all of those subjects. Eventually, scholars found empirical ways of studying those subjects and they became their own disciplines rather than just part of philosophy.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The logic that leads from a set of premises to a conclusion may not be subjective, but the premises themselves virtually always are...?...
    No, some premises are founded on nearly indubitable notions about the world, yet others are very speculative.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Subjectivity must inevitably enter the picture because you have no way of proving the veracity of your premises....?...
    Improve your reading comprehension and you'll see what this way of 'proving veracity of premises' is.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You seem to have assumed that the entire concept of behavioral typology is totally invalid, but on what grounds?.
    Not completely invalid, but it has deep flaws. I am not explaining what they are again. Read the essay on typology as a philosophical discipline.



    ,
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    but did you ever consider that maybe some of this actually helps people learn to interact better with others/understand the needs and perspectives of others more effectively??.
    That happens rarely and mostly when the study is guided by professional counsellors. In most folk conversations about the subject, its a waste of time.

    ,
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Why is it that you think people use "folk typology", anyway? And why is it that so many people find it useful??.
    Because it is a fast and easy way to characterize people and generate gossip.

    ,
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Is it just one big mass delusion, or are you missing out on something useful and declaring it useless due to bias produced by your own social ineptitude???.
    You know nothing of my motives and merely assume that it is a result of a bias because you lack the reasoning aptitude and the reading comprehension to understand the supporting rationale behind it.

    ,
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Is
    Behavior is the only method we have of observing the tendencies of others, so all of your ideas regarding cognitive tendencies are rooted in observation of human behavior in the first place,.
    Jung observed the relevant cognitive behaviors, not the common-place behaviors that the modern MBTI writers observe.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander29 View Post
    Perhaps I'm either misunderstanding or failing to follow the logic.

    Unconscious tendencies which are ingrained in the psyche would logically appear to be a significant factor influencing behavior and personality..
    They should influence a person's behavior, however, exactly how they do is not obvious. We need more information than just a person's cognitive tendencies to understand their behavior which is why typology alone is insufficient to predict how a person will behave in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander29 View Post
    How would typology be utterly worthless in this regard?..
    The insights about human behavior it offers are too vague. People have reasons other than their natural tendencies to behave in a way that they do and anyone who predicts behavior on the basis of type alone altogether ignores that.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander29 View Post
    It would seem to have practical utility - to help you to understand others and give you some ideas on how someone may think or act.?..
    It may help you understand something about them, but merely attributing all of their behaviors to their type is a mistake. It is an error of ignoring the possibility that their behaviors could have been influenced by factors other than their natural cognitive dispositions.


    Quote Originally Posted by highlander29 View Post
    It is imprecise to be sure but I fail to see why there is no value.
    I believe I said that it is nearly worthless rather than worthless altogether.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Yes, it is obvious that everyone thinks, feels, senses and intuits, but the nature of and relationships between these functions described in Jung's text are simply his own subjective interpretations of the dynamics between them, and in no way constitute indubitable fact.
    The indubitable fact is that these cognitive faculties exist, however, Jung's definition of them should be questioned.
    "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/

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Commonalities/differences between ENFP and ENFJ
    By proteanmix in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-23-2015, 02:35 PM
  2. Common sense - what is it and who has it?
    By JivinJeffJones in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 12:21 AM
  3. [INFP] Common for other INFPs?
    By sleep in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-05-2008, 10:48 PM
  4. Suggestions for new fines, charges and other changes for the sake of common sense.
    By Xander in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-24-2008, 06:35 AM
  5. Commonly abused logical Fallacies..
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-27-2007, 05:54 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