[MBTI General] ENFPs pwn INTPs

[Kiddo]

But it doesn't make sense. The system isn't affected by someone elses abuse. It's not like a gear tract. It's abstract. It can't be damaged.

You're wrong.

Consider the outcomes. If somebody who hasn't had the experience to reason correctly uses the system, then the outcome will be incorrect. Whereas, if somebody who has had the experience to reason correctly uses the system, then the outcome will be correct. Therefore the system only works if the person who has had the experience necessary to reason correctly uses it. It is therefore only as good as the person using it.

Does that make sense?

 

[proteanmix]

JHC, hasn't the T vs. F subject been beat into the carpet like old gum?

Just to recap:

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...rsonality-matrices/4659-feeling-thinking.html

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...sonality-matrices/3741-fluffy-ts-cold-fs.html

This thread is perilously close to getting thrown in graveyard.

 

[Nocapszy]

If God is concrete, then how come haven't I ever seen or heard from him?

Have you ever seen the inside of the earth?

Logic is neither concrete nor abstract by itself.

Maybe that one you invented is neither, but concrete vs. abstract is a boolean measure.

On or off, yes or no, concrete or abstract.

It's one or the other. You'd know that if you knew the definitions of the words.

 

[heart]

JHC, hasn't the T vs. F subject been beat into the carpet like old gum?

When did that ever affect a message board discussion?

 

[The Ü™]

Have you ever seen the inside of the earth?

No, so cognitively, it is abstract. No one knows for sure what's down there. So it's speculative.

 

[proteanmix]

When did that ever affect a message board discussion?

I'd think that having the same discussion every other week with a different thread title would get boring. Evidently not.

 

[heart]

I'd think that having the same discussion every other week with a different thread title would get boring. Evidently not.

People love formula in literature and movies, why would message boards be different?

 

[Nocapszy]

Consider the outcomes. If somebody who hasn't had the experience to reason correctly uses the system, then the outcome will be incorrect. Whereas, if somebody who has had the experience to reason correctly uses the system, then the outcome will be correct. Therefore the system only works if the person who has had the experience necessary to reason correctly uses it. It is therefore only as good as the person using it.

Does that make sense?

No. It doesn't.

If they're using logic wrong, then they're not using logic. They're using something else. I don't know what it is, but it's not logic.

It's simple and incontrovertible. If they're wrong, it's not logical. Not that they were using logic wrong.

There's no argument here. You're just objectifying logic which is wrong. It's not physically present. Stop trying to make it so.

 

[Nocapszy]

No, so cognitively, it is abstract.

No one knows for sure what's down there.

Not knowing what it is doesn't make it abstract. Abstract means not physically present.

You could say that abstractions don't exist.

 

[The Ü™]

Not knowing what it is, doesn't make it abstract. Abstract means not physically present.

You could say that abstractions don't exist.

As as far as I know, cognitively, the center of the earth is not physically present. It's a suggestion, but it's not absolute.

 

[ygolo]

JHC, hasn't the T vs. F subject been beat into the carpet like old gum?

Just to recap:

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...rsonality-matrices/4659-feeling-thinking.html

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...sonality-matrices/3741-fluffy-ts-cold-fs.html

This thread is perilously close to getting thrown in graveyard.

Well, there are only 4 dichotomies to discuss in Myers-Briggs.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that we keep talking about them.

 

[Nocapszy]

Not knowing what it is, doesn't make it abstract. Abstract means not physically present.

You could say that abstractions don't exist.

As as far as I know, cognitively, the center of the earth is not physically present. It's a suggestion, but it's not absolute.

Ignorance doesn't alter existence.

 

[The Ü™]

Okay, so maybe these things do exist, but we don't know what these things are like to be experienced, so it becomes an abstraction.

 

[Kiddo]

No. It doesn't.

If they're using logic wrong, then they're not using logic. They're using something else. I don't know what it is, but it's not logic.

It's simple and incontrovertible. If they're wrong, it's not logical. Not that they were using logic wrong.

There's no argument here. You're just objectifying logic which is wrong. It's not physically present. Stop trying to make it so.

A: Your definition of logic is wrong.
B: Logic is only a system.
C: Systems can only produce correct outcomes if they have adequate inputs.
D: I have never suggested that logic is "physical". It is an abstract system.

Therefore, logic is subjective, because it is a system, and a system is only as good as the people who us it, and people are subjective entities.

 

[SillySapienne]

This is why I say ENFPs aren't rational.

Logic isn't subjective. Perspective is.

In fact, perspective and subjective can almost be used interchangeably.

Logic is absolute.

1+1 = 11

Is true from an aesthetic standpoint.

I enjoyed his post, because he said it was true depending on how you *looked* at it.

*sheesh*

 

[The Ü™]

D: I have never suggested that logic is "physical". It is an abstract system.

Well, to that end, I can agree, but it could be used to measure abstract ideas or concrete things.

 

[proteanmix]

Well, there are only 4 dichotomies to discuss in Myers-Briggs.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that we keep talking about them.

It's not that people keep talking about them, it's just that very little new information is disseminated.

I wish people would talk more about Jungian theory or MBTI, but the best we get is this Cosmo-ish rehashing of the same arguments. People have almost used the same arguments word for word in the two threads I posted. It gets very boring.

So yeah, heart's basically right. This topic is like Maury and paternity tests.

 

[Nocapszy]

A: Your definition of logic is wrong.
B: Logic is only a system.
C: Systems can only produce correct outcomes if they have adequate inputs.

Logic is not a system. It's not like a meat grinder or something.

D: I have never suggested that logic is "physical". It is an abstract system.

Therefore, logic is subjective, because it is a system, and a system is only as good as the people who us it, and people are subjective entities.

What the hell... I'm not wrong.
You have suggested that it's physical. You can't misuse something that's abstract. If you are, then you're using something else. How can that be incorrect?

 

[Nocapszy]

1+1 = 11

Is true from an aesthetic standpoint.

I enjoyed his post, because he said it was true depending on how you *looked* at it.

*sheesh*

If we're using the visual standpoint, then 1+1 = 1+1

If you wanna get cute you can say "window LOL"

Not 11. Otherwise we're using conventional mathematical terms, wherein 1 represents a conceptual or otherwise quantity.

 

[SillySapienne]

Anger!!!!!

2+2 = two and two, which is visually this: 22

1+1 = one and one, which is visually this: 11

3+3+3 = three and three and three, which is visually this: 333

1+2 = one and two, which is visually this: 12

5+4+6= five and four and six, which is visually this: 546


nemo, where are you when I need you?????

Logic and imagination can coexist!!!!