# Thread: Why are NTs rationalists ?

1. Originally Posted by Samurai Drifter
Whether or not someone knows or accepts math, if they take a rock in one hand and put it on the ground in front of them, and then take a rock in the other hand and put it next to the first rock, they will have increased the amount of rocks in front of them by a definite amount. They will have, in effect, have performed the numerical operation 1 + 1 = 2.

Regardless of how much math a person knows, they will never be able to take a rock in each hand, place both on the ground in front of them, and end up with more than what we define as "2" rocks. They can call the number of rocks on the ground "3" or "4" or even "one billion," but it won't change the amount. It can't happen. Math is only subjective in what you choose to call the variables.

Example:

+ =
I didn't mean math in itself is subjective. I meant the validity of math is subjective past a certain point. It's by defining math and it's laws that you give meaning to things. If you look close enough you'll notice that no pair of rocks is actual equal meaning all is dependent on how you define an unit, for example. Just like good and evil is dependent on how you define them.

That's my point. Trueness is subjective since its definition is bound by our perception. Today you say nothing can beat the speed of light and you derive a bunch of theories from that and "trues" and "falses" from that. Tomorrow....it's anyone's guess.

2. Cuz T rationalizes the theoretical, the abstract (N)?

3. Originally Posted by Sytpg
I didn't mean math in itself is subjective. I meant the validity of math is subjective past a certain point. It's by defining math and it's laws that you give meaning to things. If you look close enough you'll notice that no pair of rocks is actual equal meaning all is dependent on how you define an unit, for example. Just like good and evil is dependent on how you define them.

That's my point. Trueness is subjective since its definition is bound by our perception. Today you say nothing can beat the speed of light and you derive a bunch of theories from that and "trues" and "falses" from that. Tomorrow....it's anyone's guess.
Theories aren't all constructed like a house of cards though. It would take a profound new insight into our understanding of reality for theoretical physics to change that much. Just because our understanding of reality changes, this does not prove that reality itself is changing. I realize that from one perspective it is our individual perception that defines reality, but there is something external that appears to impact without bias with which we interact and by which we are shaped. There is a distinction between speculation and information that results from testing hypothesis in a systematic way, which results in a fact.

Here's an illustration that combines the rationally examined (measured and external) with the realm of perception (internal and resists measurement). The experience of pain can be externally measured to some extent - heart rate, response to morphine, etc. A medical person can make some judgment call between patients to determine who is in greater need of pain medication by measuring physical responses. However, a full understanding of the experience of pain cannot be measured, so attempts at giving a number on a scale of 1 - 10 is used to get a vague notion. Because of how the brain and nervous system might be hardwired in an individual, because of psychological associations an individual has made in response to certain kinds of pain, there is actually no way to know fully know what another person experiences when they are in pain. When I have a headache, how does the experience compare to when you have a headache. There is no way to provide proof for comparison. So is pain true or false? The effects of pain can be measured, but not the experience. All things are not derived as completely from perception and experience as this example. If my heart rate is 60 bpm and yours is 90, then we can conclude that your heart is beating faster than mine. This is not equivalent to the comparison of the experience of pain. While our perceptions are fluid, there seems to be a reality out there that is constant with which we have this ongoing dance of impacting and of being impacted, of redefining with our perceptions, and of having those perceptions reshaped by external constancy. Problems can result when either pole is dismissed.

4. Yes, for people who know and accept Math.
Once our notation has been explicated, it is immaterial whether someone "knows and accepts" it; once it has been provided, it is undeniable that "2+2=4". Indeed, this is a necessary truth. Another example of a necessary truth might be, "~(p&~p)".

My point exactly. Trueness is a concept that exists beyond Mathematics and any other logical system.
I think you may have misunderstand what I was communicating. I was responding to, "...and a human construct made to fit our perception of things", which suggested that mathematics is predicated on empirical observation; my reply was essentially that "2+2=4" is true irrespective of "observation".

True and false are dependent on prior knowledge and intellectual baggage. The rules change every now and then. Like the introduction of the concept of imaginary numbers in mathematics.
Unfortunately, I find this is also too nebulous to respond to.

Exactly. True or false is subjective because a notation is required to think in such terms. Good and evil works much the same way the notation being the Bible or common sense or any other value system. It's arbitrary. We force the concept into the world. It's like any other dichotomy.
As above. Though I would have to ask whether it is "objectively" true that "it" is arbitrary, that there are concepts we "force...into the world" and whether "it's like any other dichotomy."

I think so. Are you asking me where I draw the line?
I am attempting to demonstrate the failure of your "alethic" relativism. If the idea of "objective" truth is a nonsense, and one claims that "all truths are subjective" ( as the postmodernists have it), then the claim "all truths are subjective" must also be subjective. It is a position that clearly undermines itself.

5. Originally Posted by Sytpg
Why would a T want to explain how stupid it is? Doesn't it make more sense trying to explain how illogical it is? "Stupidity" smells like emotional involvement.

Now, I might be an F, but I value logic a whole lot. Still, at the end of the day, true/false and good/bad are both subjective dichotomies.
omg emotional involvement! I better go run and hide!

Sometimes, when something is so outrageously illogical, it crosses the line right over into stupid. Like say, monotheistic conceptions of God as a conscious and self-aware entity, for instance.

Speaking of "stupid"...

I could be wrong, but it sounds like you're about two inches from falling over into "brain in a vat" territory. You know, that silly idea that since we know nothing with absolute certainty, all ideas must be equally valid?

I've said this before, but: All things are uncertain but that doesn't make them equally probable. We can still use reasoning and direct experience to separate certain ideas as less plausible ("The President is really a Martian") than others ("The Earth is round"), even if we don't technically have absolute certainty about any of them.

6. You know, 2+2 does = 4. I know, I know, we can all try and out-smart each other by talking about theories of reality etc. but yeah, for all intents and purposes, 2+2=4.

7. I've met tons of NTs that are incredibly irrational. The thing about NTs is that they're good at changing scope just perfectly so that they're never wrong (of course, they have to lie to themselves about their motives, but they never notice that part...)

Not that other types don't do this too. I'm sure I'm guilty.

8. Originally Posted by Helios
Once our notation has been explicated, it is immaterial whether someone "knows and accepts" it; once it has been provided, it is undeniable that "2+2=4". Indeed, this is a necessary truth. Another example of a necessary truth might be, "~(p&~p)".
Exactly, it's a necessary truth. It's a matter of scope. For mathematics to work axioms must exist. Something must be assumed.

I think you may have misunderstand what I was communicating. I was responding to, "...and a human construct made to fit our perception of things", which suggested that mathematics is predicated on empirical observation; my reply was essentially that "2+2=4" is true irrespective of "observation".
Yes, the same way murder is considered evil by most.

Unfortunately, I find this is also too nebulous to respond to.
I'll admit my knowledge of math history is next to zero, but I think before imaginary numbers, math had no rules dealing with the square roots of negative numbers.

As above. Though I would have to ask whether it is "objectively" true that "it" is arbitrary, that there are concepts we "force...into the world" and whether "it's like any other dichotomy."
That's the whole point of what I'm trying to say : not really. :P

I am attempting to demonstrate the failure of your "alethic" relativism. If the idea of "objective" truth is a nonsense, and one claims that "all truths are subjective" ( as the postmodernists have it), then the claim "all truths are subjective" must also be subjective. It is a position that clearly undermines itself.

Yes, it is. It's a sort of paradoxical loop. But let me just clarify something here - I'm merely playing devil's advocate. Like I mentioned earlier, it's all a matter of scope.

This has evolved somewhat, but my initial point was that just as good/evil moral codes have their dogmas so does logic have its axioms.

I do believe what is concrete and what is subjective ...is all a matter of scope. Kinda like Newton's laws VS Einsteins VS quantum physics.

Originally Posted by simulatedworld
Sometimes, when something is so outrageously illogical, it crosses the line right over into stupid. Like say, monotheistic conceptions of God as a conscious and self-aware entity, for instance.
Why illogical. If you tell that "what is written in the Bible is all true" is outrageously illogical I might agree. But monotheistic, conscious, self-aware entity...I'm open to such a possibility. I don't believe in it, but I can't say it's impossible. Maybe that's because I'm like 90% Perceiving, I dunno. I don't like set-in-stone. Not when scope of the issue is so broad.

Speaking of "stupid"...

I could be wrong, but it sounds like you're about two inches from falling over into "brain in a vat" territory. You know, that silly idea that since we know nothing with absolute certainty, all ideas must be equally valid?
No, I don't support such an idea.

I've said this before, but: All things are uncertain but that doesn't make them equally probable. We can still use reasoning and direct experience to separate certain ideas as less plausible ("The President is really a Martian") than others ("The Earth is round"), even if we don't technically have absolute certainty about any of them.
Agreed. I was merely contesting the idea that trueness/falseness is completely objective.

Kangirl : Yes, just like murder is evil.

Originally Posted by Evan
I've met tons of NTs that are incredibly irrational. The thing about NTs is that they're good at changing scope just perfectly so that they're never wrong (of course, they have to lie to themselves about their motives, but they never notice that part...)
lol, this is kinda ironic considering my discussion with Helios and Simulated , but I will say that it's a clear example of Ne "rationale". I know what I meant with my initial remark, but in order to make other people understand it better I need to distill it by engaging in discussion. The scope of my initial remark still stands, though. It's all-encompassing.

EDIT:

Toonia : Sorry, forgot to reply to your post. I mostly agree with you. The only thing I'm getting at is that objective and objective makes for overall objectiveness, but objective and subjective still makes for a subjective whole. It all depends on whether you zoom in or out, but when making "zoom out" claims...I don't like to write stuff in stone. Any human-defined concept and train of thought is subjective, even this one

Now, that doesn't mean I can't lead a normal life or anything or that I can't commit to anything but my initial point was merely that this whole "F is bias" argument should be taken with a grain of salt. Just so it isn't taken to extremes...which is something often done.

9. Originally Posted by Evan
I've met tons of NTs that are incredibly irrational. The thing about NTs is that they're good at changing scope just perfectly so that they're never wrong (of course, they have to lie to themselves about their motives, but they never notice that part...)

Not that other types don't do this too. I'm sure I'm guilty.
True.

10. Originally Posted by Antisocial one
I will be a devils advocete here.

In the case someone accuses you as a NT that you are not rationalist in the core, how would you defend your position(s) ?
I don't anymore.
I figured a good long while ago that argument isn't really a valuable endeavor. I know things because I'm actually very skilled in observation. I'm also very skilled in analysis of those observations.
I'm rarely wrong about anything, and when I am, I quickly correct myself after further observation.

At the very best, all arguing can do is benefit someone else. I have nothing to gain from it.

Which arguments would you use?
This is too vague a prompt for anyone to answer. Unless you expect them to bring up specific instances, the best possible answer is "rational ones" and that's kind of defeating.

How would you defend the claim that domination of N and T creates something that we can rational or the most rational combination?
It doesn't. Typology doesn't work that way.
Keirsey got it wrong.
He, and Meyers and Briggs grossly misinterpreted Jung's work, which is really sad because Jung didn't even get it right.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•