User Tag List

First 891011 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 104

  1. #91
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snail View Post
    When dealing with impersonal situations, this may be the case, and I never propose using pure emotion even when the recognition of emotion is situationally valuable. It is important at least to consider emotion as a variable when dealing with most interactions of a personal nature because it will affect the outcome of such interactions whether it is understood or not, sometimes in subtle ways and sometimes in more noticeable ways. Unless you are a behaviorist, you probably understand the impact of individual will on behavior, and since pure logic cannot accurately be used to predictively determine appropriate expectations regarding the human will unless the impact of emotion is considered, it is important to gather as much information as possible about the factors that are likely to contribute to a person's decisions and affect their motives if we are to understand their choices.

    In order to understand an individual's motives and determine the probability of an action, I first establish their most probable internal value structure based on the hierarchy of the priorities they seem to display through their active choices. For instance, when communicating with you, I can be fairly certain that you value logic and are likely to defend its use in accordance with your interpretation of its definition. Understanding that you value this allows me more insights into your motivations and allows me to predict your possible reactions to my behaviors when we interact, enhancing my understanding of the contextual framework in which the communication occurs. I organize the information according to importance, and this prioritization occurs according to value as an F process.



    It would be impossible for a person to function effectively with a pure version of any preference, so when you discuss the pure essence of Feeling, it is an absurdity that can only exist as a hypothetical. Some evidence suggests that nearly pure T is possible in certain cases of extreme, selective brain damage, but it leads to a lack of motivation, causes symptoms of psychopathy and decreases a person's ablility to function productively regardless of leaving many aspects of intelligence unharmed.





    It is the "sound reasoning" part I disagreed with. You certainly attempt to support your views, but not always in a way that is sound. What motivates your validation of your own INTP preferences over the other possible preference combinations if it is not the same personal will that originally led you to select those preferences for yourself?



    Of course. You don't have to tell me that you aren't picking on me, but the fact that you did proves that you are concerned with how others will be affected by your communication and that you actually do understand the value of recognizing how the feelings of others can affect outcomes and interpretations.

    Thinkers may value impersonal motives, but they are also capable of causing intentional personal harm sometimes, again indicating that some Thinkers secretly do understand how others feel, even if they don't always care. Clearly, you weren't doing so, but I've been around Thinkers who were very good at observing the emotional weaknesses of others and using them to be manipulative using personal-seeming attacks that were actually carefully calculated impersonal exploitative strategies. Sometimes it may not be personal, but is instead something pseudo-personal, which can be just as harmful.
    1)Indeed it is important to take the interpersonal attributes of the situation in consideration. However, to ensure that we have accurate information of those interpersonal variables, it is important to conduct logical analysis of what we have observed. In other words, Thinking about Feeling.

    We all do this. It is only more prominent in thinkers, however, it is almost inconstestable that a similar mechanism is to be found in the psyche of the Feeler.

    What is the essence of Feeling? The working definition that I have in Principles of Typology (coming this fall) is a faculty of conscious scrutiny which deems entities as either desirable or undesirable. Basically all Feeling does is gives us a good emotive signal or a bad one, or in between.

    In order to point out what we are dealing with, you need to use Thinking. In other words, Feeling in itself could not say a rose is good, or it makes me feel good, to point out that you are dealing with a rose, Thinking is necessary.

    The mistake Thinkers often make with respect to understanding entities of interpersonal matters is neglecting to analyze them because they tend to be in a habit of supressing emotion which prevents them from taking interest in such things. Or starting with unsound premises because they have not observed the interpersonal entities thoroughly enough.

    The mistake Feelers often make is reasoning improperly, or violating the laws of logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snail View Post
    Feeling is only as unorganized as the reasons behind the feelings, so if my values are properly organized, my feelings are usually reliable. When there is inconsistency between my feelings and my values, I become aware of an imbalance and then decide whether it is because the feeling is flawed or because the value itself requires adjustment. Through this process of continual re-checking and re-balancing, the values are honed and become increasingly accurate, leading to increased emotional maturity and philosophical certainty..
    2)If your values are organized you have used Thinking. As this is the only way I know of how to organize entities. If there could be another one way to do so, do let me know by all means!

    However, we should point out that the lower the function is, the less proficient we tend to be with the use of the function. For this reason, Fs with poorly developed Thinking tend to have unsound and fickle values because the reasoning behind those values is unsound and quickly changing. To paraphrase what you have stated, values are only as sound as the reasoning behind them.



    3)It is an interesting hypothesis that my reasoning is unsound. However, if you are to justify this, you must cite my argument and show where I have made one of the following errors. Started with false premises. Propositions that contain what we clearly know to go against the facts. Commited a formal logical fallacy. For example, if A then B--modus ponens. If Georgie is a President, he lives in the white houtse. He lives in the white house, therefore he is a president. Or an informal logical fallacy. Such an error in reasoning may contain a sound process of thought yet the variables immanent within it could be illegitimate. It is of the same class as the first example concerning unsound premises. An example of this is the following. Appeal to authority. If Albert Einstein said X is the answer to the problem, then X is the answer to the problem. Albert Einstein said X is the answer to the problem, therefore X is the answer. The problem with this kind of reasoning is that we claim that we do not provide reasons for establishing the starting premises that we have established. With respect to personal will, it is not relevant what the person's motives were. I should not have used the term personal will in the first place. Prejudice is any kind of an unwarranted notion with respect to the subject discussed that one has established before the discussion. Why someone has the unwarranted notion is irrelevant (their personal will may be one of those reasons, yet not the only reason, the unwarranted notion could simply be a result of an error in reasoning or investigation of factual information altogether irrelevant to one's personal values)Though again, with respect to pointing out the prejudice, we must look strictly at the argument and see if we find any unwarranted notions. So, to prove that BlueWing is prejudiced you must show that first of all his reasoning is unsound, the errors he has commited were commited before he has posted his reasoning process. This is most easily done when somebody establishes the first proposition as an unwarranted premise. Psychologizing the person is altogether irrelevant. Again to underscore, whether BlueWing may have an affinity with the INTP type, or whether he may value this or that just doesn't matter. All that matters is the argument he put forth and whether or not errors in reasoning could be observed in the provided text.

    4)Yes, thinkers do have concern for the interpersonal factors. Yes, thinkers are motivated by interpersonal motives to some extent. To be a Thinker means to be more influenced by Thinking than by Feeling, not to be influenced by Thinking in entirety, and not at all by feeling. Yes, there are thinkers who are very attuned with emotions and will mount attacks upon yours. However, such folks are rare. Most Thinkers tend to be motivated primarily by impersonal motives.

    5)Thinking and Feeling are intimately intertwined. In order for one to make a good value judgment, one needs thinking for reasons provided in point one. In order for one to find the motivation to Think, feeling is necessary. Feeling is the motivation for all things, as this is the only cognitive faculty attuned with our human side. The rest are mere dispassionate processes of cognition. However, despite that Thinking is inextricable from feeling, it is possible to emphasize Thinking more than feeling for the sake of highest clarity of thought of possible. It is also possible to emphasize Thinking enough to be clear-minded without repressing Feeling to the point of robbing oneself of motivation to keep on thinking and the motivation to pay attention to the personal aspect of the situation.
    "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. #92
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
    ^ don't understand half of your posts but I see the humour and like it.
    Good on you mate.

    Of course we have our sense of humour and you have yours. But I have the advantage because I watch your movies all the time and so I am well schooled.

    But what is very interesting is that although we are immersed in your popular culture, we manage, quite effortlessly to maintain our own.

    In part this explains why I like to juxtapose our high culture against your popular culture - it gives me breathing space. The Canadians, for instance, have a saying, "As American as apple pie, but as Canadian as possible under the circumstances".

    And unlike the Canadians we are not worried you will roll over in the night and crush us - so we can take our time to understand you and encourage you to understand us.

    And for geo-political reasons it is important that we learn to work together - it is important that we learn to understand one another.

    I have a little joke I share with German back-packers on the bus - I say, Germans have no sense of humour and they know they have no sense of humour, but at least they are efficient. While Americans have no sense of humour but they think they have the best sense of humour in the world.

    Of course this is entirely unfair - but is has some truth because, to us, Americans do seem to lack a sense of irony.

    Of course Americans do have other wonderful qualities which we appreciate and even try to emulate.

    But because we are united by a common language we often overlook the differences - when it is the differences that are most interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    In the thread about Satan, Milton and Divorce, Victor claimed that 9/11 has influenced him to believe that a strong, hard swing to pure Enlightenment thought (whatever that really can be defined as meaning) will save us from the irrationality of terrorism. I really cannot agree with him on this and I find it an alarming sort of extremist response to extremism.

    There's also the USA culture verses UK/Canada/Australia/ thing that he focuses on. He's on a mission to save Americans from their cultural malaise or something like that. I haven't noticed many Austrailians online focusing on such before.

    But yes, I've wondered before if the agenda were just a game to incite reactions, but he seemed very sincere in his posts in that thread.
    When people say they want to kill us in large numbers and their holy book teaches jihad and martyrdom, I take them seriously.

    We take them seriously here, so seriously we have, at this very moment, a large number of them before the Court charged with planning and preparing to kill us in large numbers at a grand final football game, in railway stations and in shopping malls.

    I follow the case closely and they have the full protection of our criminal justice system and are treated as innocent until proven guilty. They have the best criminal defence lawyers who have put up a truly excellent defence for their clients.

    If we didn't take them seriously, you would be reading about a very large number of dead Australians rather than reading this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallulah View Post
    I'm not sure why there are posters on this board that feel like their purpose is to teach. That seems a little presumptuous to me.
    I have been struck by the comparative history of your country and mine.

    And so I presume to try and teach it to you.

    I think this is more important to us than to you, partly because you are revolutionaries and discount history. And comparative history doesn't get a look in.

    And it is more important to us because our relationship with you is more important than your relationship with us.

    In fact our relationship is multidimensional which is far more interesting than a one dimensional view of the world.

    And meeting you in the Noosphere makes discussion of our different histories unavoidable. In fact it makes it desirable.

    At a deeper level, we all desire the other and the other desires us.

    So we are bound simply by desire. And we expect lovers to have their little spats - and yes, we expect lovers to be presumptuous.

    Love means never having to say you are sorry.

  3. #93
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    When people say they want to kill us in large numbers and their holy book teaches jihad and martyrdom, I take them seriously.

    We take them seriously here, so seriously we have, at this very moment, a large number of them before the Court charged with planning and preparing to kill us in large numbers at a grand final football game, in railway stations and in shopping malls.

    I follow the case closely and they have the full protection of our criminal justice system and are treated as innocent until proven guilty. They have the best criminal defence lawyers who have put up a truly excellent defence for their clients.

    If we didn't take them seriously, you would be reading about a very large number of dead Australians rather than reading this post.
    Victor, I disagreed with your solutions, not the problem itself. However, I'd like to say that there are no panceas in this world, we cannot guarntee a totally safe world. Life is fragile, there's no certainity in this world.

    I never suggested not taking things seriously, I just think balance is the better way to go.

  4. #94
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    Victor, I disagreed with your solutions, not the problem itself. However, I'd like to say that there are no panceas in this world, we cannot guarntee a totally safe world. Life is fragile, there's no certainity in this world.

    I never suggested not taking things seriously, I just think balance is the better way to go.
    Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.

    But unlike you we don't torture them, or render them to your torture allies, or deny them habeas corpus or detain them indefinitely without trial.

    We bring them before the best criminal justice system in the world with its full protections.

    The test of a pie is in its eating - and we have succeeded in stopping all attempts at mass murder of civilians on Australian soil.

  5. #95
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I admit to some irritation [with Victor] at first, but now I find him fun and interesting.
    But never forget, I am padding towards you on silent paws.

  6. #96
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.

    But unlike you we don't torture them, or render them to your torture allies, or deny them habeas corpus or detain them indefinitely without trial.

    We bring them before the best criminal justice system in the world with its full protections.

    The test of a pie is in its eating - and we have succeeded in stopping all attempts at mass murder of civilians on Australian soil.
    I have never tortured anyone. I'd appreciate it if you would not accuse me personally of actions I've never partaken in.

    Extremism begets extremism.

    What do your personal crusade posts about the dangers of Milton and supposed evils of the later Romantics have to do with the Australian Criminal Justice system of today?

  7. #97
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    What do your personal crusade posts about the dangers of Milton and supposed evils of the later Romantics have to do with the Australian Criminal Justice system of today?
    That's a very good question because I don't have an answer.

    I must admit I don't see any immediate connection.

    What can I say?

    I would like to see Milton's Satan in the dock because He would not whine and whimper, He would not plead his abusive childhood, He would not say His voices told him to do it, He would not blame the system, He would simply say, "I would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven".

    How refreshing that would be.

  8. #98
    Scream down the boulevard LadyJaye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sx
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    A learned individual is always responsible for aptly integrating his acumen into those he wishes to teach.
    One must speak French to the French, and English to the English. It's frustrating when one has something to convey but the interface isn't working. So, no understanding is gained.

    I will say that I do enjoy your thought processes, even if I do have to read them a few times in order to full grasp them. But very worth it.

  9. #99
    Senior Member Snail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Thinking and Feeling are intimately intertwined. In order for one to make a good value judgment, one needs thinking for reasons provided in point one. In order for one to find the motivation to Think, feeling is necessary. Feeling is the motivation for all things, as this is the only cognitive faculty attuned with our human side. The rest are mere dispassionate processes of cognition. However, despite that Thinking is inextricable from feeling, it is possible to emphasize Thinking more than feeling for the sake of highest clarity of thought of possible. It is also possible to emphasize Thinking enough to be clear-minded without repressing Feeling to the point of robbing oneself of motivation to keep on thinking and the motivation to pay attention to the personal aspect of the situation.
    Then we mostly agree. Debate resolved. Thinking and Feeling are inseparable and must work together in order to work at all. I prefer more of a balance between the two, because an excess of impersonal reasoning can be destructive when personal impact is not given priority rather than just being noted and calculated as one of many variables. It should be given more weight than other, less personal factors. Thinking used in the service of Feeling goals seems the best approach to avoid insensitive solutions that are physically practical but immoral or psychologically harmful. Perhaps an equal balance between the processes would provide the ideal result. I think our only remaining disagreement has to do with priorities, now that you have clarified your position.

    My claims that your reasoning was unsound were based on the fact that if you were writing about pure Feeling, you were doing so with the false idea that a person who was pure in type could even survive in order to make the kinds of stupid choices you described, and your debate was one-sided, since it would be equally destructive to have all T and no F. Someone with pure T could not survive either. Therefore, your argument against Feelers gave no actual information about whether Feeling was inferior to Thinking because either by itself is useless. All you proved was that Feeling was unreliable alone, and you did so in a way that did not fully show the extreme of that truth. Since you have re-worked your position into something more reasonable, I don't fully disagree.

    Another issue I took with some of your previously posted arguments was that you kept switching definitions and using "Feeling" as if it were synonymous with "feelings" or "emotions," sometimes using them interchangeably. It seemed to indicate that you did not make a distinction between Feeling as an organizational process of structuring internal value hierachies, and feelings as immediate internal responses to situations and thoughts. I'm still not fully convinced that you recognize the difference, since you seem to think that organization can come only from the T.

    2)If your values are organized you have used Thinking. As this is the only way I know of how to organize entities. If there could be another one way to do so, do let me know by all means!

  10. #100
    Branded with Satan murkrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    It's nice to know that two people I can't stand like each other.
    wails from the crypt.

Similar Threads

  1. The "Who-You-Should-Vote-For"-Test
    By Stephano in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-31-2016, 07:38 PM
  2. When do you have the most energy/feel most motivated for exercise?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-03-2012, 12:45 AM
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 10:28 PM
  4. What type do you think has the most potential to be successful?
    By G-Virus in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 11:22 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