But how can you possibly balance the entire model if you're sloppy with the pieces? There's too much variability!
It's like saying that "cold" and "frigid" are the same words. They are not. They have different connotations, and one is more specific than the other.Sometimes the difference doesn't matter; sometimes it WILL.
Now translate this into a general discussion where many different types of people are discussing a topic, and one person uses the word "love." How are we supposed to know what that means? I guarantee at least 50% of the ensuring arguments will be about something the original poster never meant.
Or someone says that someone else is dumb -- well, what is dumb to one person is NOT dumb to another, so what was actually MEANT by dumb?
Unless you're just brainstorming or sketching per se, if you are not precise about your terminology, there is no way to create an intricately accurate model.
To translate this into graphical terms, you cannot take a JPG picture at 72dpi and blow up the dimensions and get better quality (say, 300 dpi); your level of detail and precision in terminology determines how precise your final image can be.
...Because the concept of various dimensions in space is actually pretty important in art analysis. Not all art movements use the same sort of dimensional space and you have to be able to perceive, understand, and articulate that in order to evaluate pieces you see.
Not much different than people assuming computers are "magical boxes" and not caring how they work or how the "how they work" aspect actually impacts how they can be used most effectively.
Actually, I am always willing to change my beliefs.Originally Posted by simulatedworld
But you have to give me a reason.
The biggest issue here: I have spent such a LONG time considering the idea and theories I hold and built them on evidence and observations, that if I am willing to state them as probably true, then you have a hard job against you to accumulate evidence that will tip the balance. It's not to say it can't happen, but it's usually not the case where in Level 1 of a discussion you are going to zing me with an idea that I have NEVER considered before or ignored. You will usually have to take the conversation up to Level 4 or 5 before you start tripping me up or locating my "fuzzy" spots.
For people who normally don't think in terms of building a rational case for something (and there are a decent amount), chances are I've already considered and dismissed their initial argument ahead of time.
Where you will see the need to adhere to observed or imparted knowledge is more in the realm of the perspectives:
For example, if my best guess for your motivation for doing something was X, and you inform me it was Y in a way that seems plausible to me, then I will immediately update my model to represent your motivation Y. I can't just stubbornly cling to X... unless you impart the information to me in an inconsistent manner that could suggest you are lying or not fully aware of your motivations.
You want to change an INTP's mind? You'll have less success in an argument over her logic, instead you should focus on correcting her initial assumptions. Then her logic will HAVE to change. INTP logic is ideally built on information; you want to change the information that primed the model if you want to win us over.
And this is why my earlier comments about vocabulary are so important if you want to discuss things with an INTP. If you convince us that a particular word was sloppy or meant something else than what we assumed... we have to change our conclusions and the model itself to accommodate the new definition.
I guess I gave up on INTJs, then.INTJs are more difficult to approach in the first place and will often refuse to listen to new ideas unless you can show that their current interpretation is ineffective (Te), but if you're able to break through this rigid outer shell then they'll give your ideas the utmost consideration and may completely reinvent their entire perspective on the topic (Ni.)
I find them impenetrable and don't really understand them well.
They come across as remarkable rigid and unwilling to change their views, and I just don't bother to get into long exchanges if they disagree.
I deal better with INFJs, since their people skills tend to make them interact in ways that give me "positive cues" that they are listening and considering, and if they are Ti strong, then we can engage on that level.