User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 163

  1. #131
    Senior Member LostInNerSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Your failure to carefully apply language is most probably the result of very low Thinking skills.
    I have to admit. I have not read the context. I read the first post and that's about it. This statement makes no sense at all. What makes you think [thinking] and language are inextricably linked? Language is just a means of expression. Another means of expression is art (including performance art). Does that mean people who can't paint have a low capacity to emote?

    Stick to competitive glue huffing.

  2. #132
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Not sure I get why it's a false dichotomy.

    Most big decisions are based on emotion whether you're T or F, but the topics you prefer to study, which in turn will typically determine your career choice are strongly impacted by whether you're T or F.

  3. #133
    Senior Member LostInNerSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel View Post
    Not sure I get why it's a false dichotomy.

    Most big decisions are based on emotion whether you're T or F, but the topics you prefer to study, which in turn will typically determine your career choice are strongly impacted by whether you're T or F.
    I don't think it was intended to be interpreted like that anyway. T vs F is a preference. There are a finite number of questions in any given type sorter questionnaire, therefore we end up with artificially discrete intervals. There is no absolute maximum to Thinking or Feeling. I don't see how it possible to accurately quantify those functions. If anything itís a good rule of thumb that someone high on the T or F scale has a strong preference for that kind of decision making.

  4. #134
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Well by these definitions feeling could be rational, but then it still doesn't elevate feeling in terms of making good decisions.

    All it does is to open up the word rational.
    That is, me being wrong doesn't change the essence of Feeling.
    All it does it to allow Feelers to be allowed in the proverbial 'cool kids' circle.

    Everyone wants to be rational: most people aren't. It's too bad we keep changing the language to solve problems 'cause language doesn't even exist.
    All we do when we change the language is to ignore a problem/advantage.

    And you're giving it to them! You're defending the Fs (as if it were really even an attack...) -- much like an F would: By finding the definitions you like instead of finding the one that most appropriately conveys the message.
    Changing the contents of the capsule -- but not the capsule itself.
    If you do that in medicine, it's called malpractice, and people die.

    I have an idea!! Why don't we have every word mean everything??!!??
    Panacea all around!
    Nevermind that no one will have any idea what anyone else is thinking!!! Nevermind lasting side effects!!!
    It'll be so great!!

    Exactly what is the point of slamming my post? Other than that you like to (think that you) make me look stupid (even though you haven't really...), I can't really see what progress is made.

    Seems counter-operative to your claimed M.O. You're the one who's all about productivity, and ceaselessly complain about my lack of it -- which by the way is another worthless claim, by the way, since I've never lied regarding typology.

    I think you just had a pimple on your asshole the same day I insulted you, and, like an ape, blamed me for the pain.
    Now every time you see my name, it reminds you of it and you just rage all day for the rest of the day.

    Well I have to apologize for my bad timing, but you ought to at least apologize for irrationally for calling me a [i]pain in the ass[/b] as it really wasn't my fault.

    Anyway, regardless of your personal feelings for me, my post actually has some relevance -- I suggest you give it a genuine look over and thinking to yourself "Oh this guy is an idiot!" after reading my post, instead of doing it beforehand, because I have [i]reason[/b] to suspect that these feelings affect your rationality, by improperly focusing your attention.
    That kind of over-punctuation is something like a neon sign that says "do not respond", but I tend to ignore those signals, don't I? I will clarify myself, for whoever bothers reading this.
    (Well, true honesty demands me to admit that I might just be exercising at this point. I think it's a bit of both).


    The notion that I pick the definition I like is basiically the opposite of what I do. I very consciously sought the words as they were being used (i,e adjective, noun, etc..) and examined every definition excluding ones that were entirely field specific (such as mathematical definitions, for example). The point being, that I most likely performed less selection than most people would. I attempt denotative literalism. It is through comparing literal interpretations that I determined rational should include Feeling. Indeed, Nocapszy did concede that much.

    But he says that the "essence" of Feeling is the same. Essence is one of those words that always treads dangerously close to gobilty-gook, but I figure I understand the point. Feeling is the same, it has only had the classifcation around it shifted a little. This happens with species of animals all the time. the species certainly doesn't change in 5 years, merely, zoological taxonomist change the class it is in. And yes, that is all I have done, but that doesn't make my point insignificant. One need only imagine, based on the definitions I cited, what it would really mean if Feeling were actually irrational. To say such a thing would be highly misleading, and so it is unacceptable.

    The statement that Feeling cannot make good decisions is questionable unto itself. There are however, for too many ways for me to look at this statement to bother innumerating, especially since the subject has really been about rational, and it's relation to Feeling, not so much the singular merit of Feeling.

    The paragraph with all the punctuation marks obviously goes after a strawman. I do not want a totally relativistic vocabulary at all. Maybe, in the long run, the change of shit of language does mean that definitions are eternally relative in some sense, but that's a slow process, and what I do at the moment is more important. All I do is cite the dictionary, whatever state it is in at the time. In some cases, it does result in words becoming more broad than people are using them, as with this instance of the word rational. But more often, I find that words are more narrow than people commonly use them, and because of this, I have received far more accusation in my life of being nit-picky and exacting with language, than of being a relativist. The consistent case is, I do what the dictionary says. Why? Because it is the only thing we have for denotative meaning. If some people on this forum would like to take up the difficult task of establishing an accessible Typology dictionary, I wish them the best of luck.

    And of course, like the gold-old finisher, judging my accuracy on pre-suppostions about my character or motive is fallacious.

    The rest of the post is smoke (or perhaps more like steam). He is inaccurate in the assumption he has made about why or how I go about doing things. But the inaccuray of it is not as importat as the irrelevance of it. Practically speaking, it would take mutliple long posts to elaborate on everything about myself that he has commented or questioned, and none of it would be argumentatively pertinent.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #135
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LostInNerSpace View Post
    I have to admit. I have not read the context. I read the first post and that's about it. This statement makes no sense at all. What makes you think [thinking] and language are inextricably linked? Language is just a means of expression. Another means of expression is art (including performance art). Does that mean people who can't paint have a low capacity to emote?

    Stick to competitive glue huffing.
    You're just jealous I thought of it first.

    Quit arguing with your feelings -- both you and the poriferan.
    It's like you two think you hate me hard enough, my points are ruined.
    we fukin won boys

  6. #136
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    You're just jealous I thought of it first.

    Quit arguing with your feelings -- both you and the poriferan.
    It's like you two think you hate me hard enough, my points are ruined.
    And he's telling me to start thinking outside of my presumptions.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #137
    it's a nuclear device antireconciler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Intj
    Enneagram
    5w4 so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Feeling drives everyone to action. There's no logical reason to do anything but sit in one place and do nothing until you die of dehydration.
    The idea that of a pure impersonal logic may be something of a keystone to the belief that T and F functions can occur completely discretely, 100% one way or the other. Even if that were not possible, it would not follow that T and F is a false dichotomy. It's not as if T is reducible to F, or the other way around. These words are not synonymous in everyday speech, and aren't, even given their technical precision. Can we say, then, that T and F are not after all false dichotomies? Sure, and that's not to threaten the idea that somehow T and F are exclusive of each other, since that appears to be the real issue at stake.

    However, the existence of a completely impersonal logic WOULD threaten the notion that T and F cannot occur discretely, since F is intimately bound with the self. If T is abstractable from the self, in virtue of its ability to generalize, then the self can be thought of as composed of discrete components, namely, a part joined to the universal and eternal, philosophy, etc., namely, Thinking, and a part joined to the conditions of finite existence and concern, namely, Feeling.

    This abrupt distinction is not possible, on the grounds that Thinking cannot rise to the level of abstraction and dispassion without the ground of finite existence. There is, after all, no consciousness without a body, no thinking without affective feeling. Nor can the finitude of the thinking subject be established without the universal, which is the home of Thinking and reason and coherence. So, feeling to a self-consciousness in finitude which it reflects, even basely, is not possible without the logical foundation of the universal.

    Since development occurs in the direction of reflectivity, Feeling appears as a base, unreflective foundation of Thinking, however, Thinking, for its part, was not possible without the logic of the universal, in effect, rising through its base, unreflective precursor in order to establish it, which it could not have done except of the logic which is the right of Thinking. Feeling, thus, however illogical an error prone, must be perfectly reconcilable with Thinking. Where this fails, it can only be a symbol of error, simply, a lack of clarity and reflectivity which is the will itself owning its object.

    The will, thus, is bound up in Thinking and Feeling both, and so it must be said that every action taken in clarity and right thinking is also logical.

    I recognize the lack of clarity in this argument. It is not yet well refined, but I'll keep working it into shape.
    ~ a n t i r e c o n c i l e r
    What is death, dies.
    What is life, lives.

  8. #138
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    That kind of over-punctuation is something like a neon sign that says "do not respond", but I tend to ignore those signals, don't I? I will clarify myself, for whoever bothers reading this.
    (Well, true honesty demands me to admit that I might just be exercising at this point. I think it's a bit of both).


    The notion that I pick the definition I like is basiically the opposite of what I do. I very consciously sought the words as they were being used (i,e adjective, noun, etc..) and examined every definition excluding ones that were entirely field specific (such as mathematical definitions, for example). The point being, that I most likely performed less selection than most people would. I attempt denotative literalism. It is through comparing literal interpretations that I determined rational should include Feeling. Indeed, Nocapszy did concede that much.

    But he says that the "essence" of Feeling is the same. Essence is one of those words that always treads dangerously close to gobilty-gook, but I figure I understand the point. Feeling is the same, it has only had the classifcation around it shifted a little. This happens with species of animals all the time. the species certainly doesn't change in 5 years, merely, zoological taxonomist change the class it is in. And yes, that is all I have done, but that doesn't make my point insignificant. One need only imagine, based on the definitions I cited, what it would really mean if Feeling were actually irrational. To say such a thing would be highly misleading, and so it is unacceptable.

    The statement that Feeling cannot make good decisions is questionable unto itself. There are however, for too many ways for me to look at this statement to bother innumerating, especially since the subject has really been about rational, and it's relation to Feeling, not so much the singular merit of Feeling.

    The paragraph with all the punctuation marks obviously goes after a strawman.
    Sounds like you're really grasping at straws to use that expression in this thread.
    Just use the emoticon, F.
    I do not want a totally relativistic vocabulary at all.
    Oddly enough, your conceptual dislike of a relativistic vocabulary is counteracted by your practical favor of one.
    Maybe, in the long run, the change of shit of language does mean that definitions are eternally relative in some sense, but that's a slow process, and what I do at the moment is more important.
    Here's where I pull a BW and say "I do not understand the relevance at all!"
    All I do is cite the dictionary, whatever state it is in at the time.
    And here's where I, unlike BW discover the relevance, and proceed without confusion.


    True enough, but not all dictionaries are consistent.
    Ah but no matter that -- I'm sure an honest, progress oriented type like yourself wouldn't dare deceive by searching through more than one to find the definition he wanted for his argument. And further, I doubt he'd be unwilling to concede when said search yielded results opposing his claim.

    Nary a mind this point.
    We'll carry on.
    In some cases, it does result in words becoming more broad than people are using them, as with this instance of the word rational.
    I suppose you mean "words becoming more broad than people ought to be using them" since the becoming is an act of the usage.

    That is, the way you've constructed this sentence is impossible.

    Yes, I believe I made this very point in my last post -- about stretching the meaning of the word to include more.

    But more often, I find that words are more narrow than people commonly use them, and because of this, I have received far more accusation in my life of being nit-picky and exacting with language, than of being a relativist.
    So then the last paragraph is to clear your name.

    Again you make the mistake of assuming my attack was on your character rather than your points.
    Please keep this in mind -- I'm sure it's difficult, but just do me this favor: Any needle you might feel is only aside. The main point and putting you down are not even incidental to one another -- I just like doing both, and it's easiest to do them simultaneously.

    But that's no reason to spend half your post complaining or correcting me about it when there are more prevalent things to discuss.

    The consistent case is, I do what the dictionary says. Why? Because it is the only thing we have for denotative meaning. If some people on this forum would like to take up the difficult task of establishing an accessible Typology dictionary, I wish them the best of luck.
    You might do a search for the P and J muddling.

    It's comprised almost entirely of splitting hairs on the humiliating linguistic over/misuse surrounding typology.

    And of course, like the gold-old finisher, judging my accuracy on pre-suppostions about my character or motive is fallacious.
    You may, with some experimentation, find that the greater portion of all knowledge is discovered by action on "pre-suppositions" (presumptions), be they accurate or not. I might not have you exactly figured out, but I am certain that you're more likely to invent something to 'correct' what I have to say simply because you don't like me than you are to address my post as it is.

    The rest of the post is smoke (or perhaps more like steam). He is inaccurate in the assumption he has made about why or how I go about doing things. But the inaccuray of it is not as importat as the irrelevance of it. Practically speaking, it would take mutliple long posts to elaborate on everything about myself that he has commented or questioned, and none of it would be argumentatively pertinent.
    Well, none of this was argumentatively pertinent either, but you went right ahead and posted it anyway.
    We get it Poriferan: You have high standards.

    Now the rest of my post wasn't smoke, it's just similarly relevant as your post. That is, it's not.
    I'm just really getting sick of your ceaseless, and usually incorrect attempts to detract the value of anything I say.

    Instead of sending you a private message, I decided to deal with it here. Context would really help a situation like this one.
    I can see quite plainly that you're irrevocable hatred for me is more hap-hazard than a blindfold while driving.
    You obviously don't want to be any more civil than I do, and LOLably, you're just as 'bad'.

    I'll be taking congratulations for bringing the poriferan "down to my level" in the lobby. Or the graveyard, or something.
    Last edited by Nocapszy; 01-05-2009 at 03:33 PM.
    we fukin won boys

  9. #139
    Senior Member LostInNerSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    You're just jealous I thought of it first.

    Quit arguing with you're feelings -- both you and the poriferan.
    It's like you two think you hate me hard enough, my points are ruined.
    I have no idea what your talking about. What point? I don't hate anyone.

  10. #140
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,499

    Default

    I think its a false dichotomy. Our brain works in parallel therefore we can think and feel at the same time. In order to feel we must process the event which requires us to think and once the thought process causes us to feel the thought process does not stop. Therefore we can think and feel at the same time so it is not mutually exclusive.

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] Adam-12: GREAT Display Of Thinking Vs. Feeling
    By LauraIngallsWalton in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2017, 04:19 AM
  2. Thinking vs Feeling
    By Eastwood in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-25-2015, 04:07 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Thinking vs Feeling
    By Doomkid in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 05-12-2014, 06:49 AM
  4. Thinking Vs Feeling
    By oxymoron in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-18-2010, 05:14 PM
  5. Thinking vs. Feeling: What if...
    By Nonsensical in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 11:43 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