[NT] Why are NTs rationalists ?

[Virtual ghost]

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) ? Which arguments would you use?



How would you defend the claim that domination of N and T creates something that we can rational or the most rational combination?

 

[93JC]

Beats me, I do lots of stupid, irrational things.

 

[ed111]

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) ? Which arguments would you use?



How would you defend the claim that domination of N and T creates something that we can rational or the most rational combination?

I'd first ask them why they believed that to be so and would then attempt to disprove them point by point.

 

[nanook]

it just frigging stupid. rationality is a stage of development and not a very high one. it doesn't come earlier to thinking types.

young males who think they are the cream of the crop because they can tell (i could tell in kindergarten) that god is not a man with a white beard and "therefore does not exist" (that never made any sense) are not even rational, just have a short attention span and make up for it with arrogance.

 

[entropie]

Well, first of all I dont need to defend my position, once I made up my mind. Thats rational in itself.

And secondly I never make up my mind.

And thirdly, is it actually called thirdly ?

But fourthly, if someone would call me being not rational, most of the times it is myself. Nevertheless if it would do another person, I would lay out, why I did it in the most rational way, so I am really constantly capable of rationalizing my surroundings, not depending how irrational the nature is.

And fifthly, if still someone asks: why are you irrational ? And I would have no response, I would say: because I liked to be

---------

I guess in the end, being someone who constantly tries to keep track of how things work and how a leads to c and leads back to b, you develop a constant need to rationalize. I couldnt imagine life without it. I even rationalized things, when being in kindergarten, after I played a horrible joke on someone.

I guess in the end, its pretty much about your own rationality and common rationality. If you feel that you have not acted rationally, you either did bruise your own concept of rationality or common rationality.

To some common rationality is wrong and to someone their own rationality still is in need of developing. They can do that or leave it. To me acting on impulse or following an emotion nearly lead to insanity. I need to understand what I am doing, why I am doing it and where it leads to, to fuel the very foundation I am made of, to feel at peace with my own heart.

Maybe its high moral standards playing into it aswell, concerning myself, I really dont need to always be right or to explain everything to anyone. But I need a rational explanation to things for myself.

Maybe being an entp makes it more easy in that case, because if I lack an explanation, I just make up one for myself, dont talk about it and fell happy about it . As long as noone is harmed by that, I can live with it

 

[Kangirl]

In the case someone accuses you as a NT that you are not rationalist in the core, how would you defend your position(s) ? Which arguments would you use?

1. I am under no illusions whatsoever re: everything I believe/think/feel being 'rational'. If someone accuses me of being irrational over a specific thing, and they have a good reason for thinking as much, I'll definitely consider the possibility of their being right.

 

[simulatedworld]

it just frigging stupid. rationality is a stage of development and not a very high one. it doesn't come earlier to thinking types.

young males who think they are the cream of the crop because they can tell (i could tell in kindergarten) that god is not a man with a white beard and "therefore does not exist" (that never made any sense) are not even rational, just have a short attention span and make up for it with arrogance.

If only so many religious people didn't actually think that, we wouldn't have to repeatedly explain how stupid it is.

 

[nanook]

if only anyone would have a look at how the human mind works, they would realize that its not ever explanation (as in "arguing on youtube") that elevates people to higher stages (or the lack of it, that causes regression).

 

[nozflubber]

I'm a rationalist cuz "deez nutz" said so. He's on the corner of Fletcher and 56th

 

[Litvyak]

In the case someone accuses you as a NT that you are not rationalist in the core, how would you defend your position(s) ? Which arguments would you use?

I wouldn't really care. Everybody has the right to think whatever they want. This topic is too boring to argue about.

 

[ed111]

I wouldn't really care. Everybody has the right to think whatever they want. This topic is too boring to argue about.

Agreed: This is very hypothetical. Trying to be rational, and believing that everything has a rational explanation is fundamental to the way I view the world. For example, I rationalise my irrational fears.

 

[Costrin]

Define rationalist.

 

[Night]

It's kind of an arbitrary title used to summarily describe a group of people. It's not an all-encapsulating remark. The same wisdom applies to the notion that not all NFs are "Idealists" or that every SP is an "Artisan".

The heading sounds elitist. Formal MBTI "titles" do more to confuse awareness than offer credible connecting points between types.

 

[Moiety]

It's kind of an arbitrary title used to summarily describe a group of people. It's not an all-encapsulating remark. The same wisdom applies to the notion that not all NFs are "Idealists" or that every SP is an "Artisan".

The heading sounds elitist. Formal MBTI "titles" do more to confuse awareness than offer credible connecting points between types.

This

Define rationalist.

And this.

If only so many religious people didn't actually think that, we wouldn't have to repeatedly explain how stupid it is.

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.

 

[Helios]

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.

I'm not sure how the proposition "2+2=4" is only true "to someone", or "subjectively". Would the claim, "Still, at the end of the day, true/false...(is a) subjective dichotomy" also only be "true" in a similar fashion?

 

[Winds of Thor]

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) ? Which arguments would you use?



How would you defend the claim that domination of N and T creates something that we can rational or the most rational combination?

"How am I not rational?" "Expand on your theory." "Use rational thought to explain your argument...as I understand rational thought as second-nature"...perhaps those questions would help them support their argument.

If they didn't support it, I would tell them what they were saying didn't make sense. Therein lies my rational thought.

You can then tell them that, showing you are rational, as a consolation prize for them.

 

[Moiety]

I'm not sure how the proposition "2+2=4" is only true "to someone", or "subjectively". Would the claim, "Still, at the end of the day, true/false...(is a) subjective dichotomy" also only be "true" in a similar fashion?

It's subjective when you try and define "2" and "+" and "=" and "4". Math is arbitrary to a certain extent, and a human construct made to fit our perception of things. Look at how Einstein dismissed Quantum theory. He had a preconceived notion of how theoretical science related to reality. "True" and "false" might be absolutely concrete in the realm of theoretical math, but as soon as you apply that theory to the world, things might not "fit".

If a Neanderthal were to look at "2+2=4", he wouldn't think in terms of true/false. Trueness and falseness are human concepts just like good and evil.

 

[Helios]

It's subjective when you try and define "2" and "+" and "=" and "4"

The numeral "2" denotes the number 2; "+" is a symbol, used to indicate that the function is additional; "=" is another symbol, used to express equality. The value of "2+2" is necessarily "4", a numeral denoting the number 4.

Math is arbitrary to a certain extent, and a human construct made to fit our perception of things.

Mathematics is not the extrapolation of empirical observation; we do not conclude that 2+2=4 from observing that, upon gathering two apples, and then gathering another two, we are left with four; indeed, no evidence can possibly be adduced for the proposition.

Look at how Einstein dismissed Quantum theory. He had a preconceived notion of how theoretical science related to reality. "True" and "false" might be absolutely concrete in the realm of theoretical math, but as soon as you apply that theory to the world, things might not "fit".

I find this explanation too nebulous to properly respond to.

If a Neanderthal were to look at "2+2=4", he wouldn't think in terms of true/false. Trueness and falseness are human concepts just like good and evil.

A "Neanderthal" would be ignorant of our notation.

In the spirit of my former question, is it "subjectively" true that the notions of "true" and "false" are "subjective"; or, to put it another way, is it subjectively true that relativism is true?

 

[Moiety]

The numeral "2" denotes the number 2; "+" is a symbol, used to indicate that the function is additional; "=" is another symbol, used to express equality. The value of "2+2" is necessarily "4", a numeral denoting the number 4.

Yes, for people who know and accept Math.

Mathematics is not the extrapolation of empirical observation; we do not conclude that 2+2=4 from observing that, upon gathering two apples, and then gathering another two, we are left with four; indeed, no evidence can possibly be adduced for the proposition.

My point exactly. Trueness is a concept that exists beyond Mathematics and any other logical system.

I find this explanation too nebulous to properly respond to.

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.

A "Neanderthal" would be ignorant of our notation.

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.

In the spirit of my former question, is it "subjectively" true that the notions of "true" and "false" are "subjective"; or, to put it another way, is it subjectively true that relativism is true?

I think so. Are you asking me where I draw the line?

 

[Samurai Drifter]

Yes, for people who know and accept Math.

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:

+ =