User Tag List

First 3543444546475595145545 Last

Results 441 to 450 of 7026

  1. #441
    unscannable Tigerlily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    TIGR
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    5,937

    Default

    ^ two of a kind.
    Time is a delicate mistress.

  2. #442
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    549 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    41,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Still copping out, eh?
    I'm lazy. Why recreate the wheel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Jeez you lose a couple of bad traits and all of a sudden you're either an extrovert or an F!!(or BOTH!!! :eek: )
    LOLCATZ!
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #443
    Earth Exalted Thursday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LIE
    Posts
    3,954

    Default

    yeah
    but Jen is an ESFJ like i'm an INFP
    I N V I C T U S

  4. #444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AvereX View Post
    yeah
    but Jen is an ESFJ like i'm an INFP
    so she's ESFP?
    I don't wanna!

  5. #445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    NPG - ISTJ
    I certainly don't identify with having obligations and a sense of duty like ISTJs. Also, the dominant function of ISTJs is Introverted Sensing, which generally requires an attention to detail that I do not possess.

    Anyway, curious to hear your thoughts unless, of course, you just typed me as an ISTJ because you don't like me. If that's the case, screw off.

  6. #446
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I'm lazy. Why recreate the wheel?
    Because it's FUN!
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  7. #447
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,454

    Default

    Magic Poriferan is not an INTP.

    Reasons.

    1)It is very clear that he is an Introverted Judger as he professes so. Very clear that he is an Intuitive. (Such claims could be backed up with the material he has posted, though not necessary at this juncture as they are irrelevant to the main point.)

    2)He is unlikely to be a dominant Introverted Thinker for the following reasons.
    -Does not appear to have a natural aptitude for logic because he frequently makes ostensibly contradictory claims with little effort to correct them. In fact, it seems clear that he hardly notices this.
    -His thinking does not flow in an organized fashion. For it is torrential and chaotic. A logical thinker relates his ideas in terms of their logical consistency to each other. Magic does not seem to be doing this. Manifestly lacks internal structure and altogether internal consistency.


    Examples.

    Point 2: Does not appear to have a natural aptitude for logic because he frequently makes ostensibly contradictory claims with little effort to correct them. In fact, it seems clear that he hardly notices this.

    Magic has engaged me in the following dialogue.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ebunked-2.html

    In post 198 he states the following.


    "Well, BlueWing, it seems more like you're just using every method in the book to convince yourself, and possible even others, that you're right.
    That's really not the same as seeking to learn."

    Summary: You are just trying to convince yourself that you are right.

    In the post to follow, (199), I respond rather sardonically. Oh of course! Obviously my purpose is not to seek after the truth, but after honor of some kind! Hence my point was, convincing yourself that you are right is not important. Convincing others is even less important than convincing yourself. What is truly important is making sure that you know the truth. Approval of others, or any deeply felt personal conviction is not necessary. Truth stands on its own right. A proposition is either true, or it is false, irrespectively of how I or anyone else feels about this. In short, nothing but the truth matters, it is purely impersonal and the human element is irrelevant to this.

    Magic responds in post 200.

    "I'd be the last person to say that truth was a matter of giving into popular sentiment. That has nothing to do with my point about learnng through the process of debate. It has nothing to do with my point about going too far to confirm your own beliefs."

    Summary: Point 1:I never stated that truth has something to do with how people feel about it! Point 2:You should learn through debating! (?..not sure what he meant by this)

    I have difficulty seeing how the 2 claims are connected. In the first claim he states that he agrees with my earlier point that truth is purely impersonal and how people feel about this does not matter. Yet in the second point he seems to insinuate that debating, or dialogue with others should help you learn. If he meant that you should consider the ideas of other people, and analyze them to see if they are true, and learn by entertaining ideas of others, accepting other ideas if it becomes clearly they are true (not because other people feel you should accept them), than his 2nd claim is consistent with the first.

    Hence, in such a case his point 1 is, truth is purely impersonal, how people feel about it does not matter. His point 2 is, you can still get closer to the truth by discussing ideas with people without embracing what they say only because they feel strongly about what they say.

    Now onto the third point.

    Point 3: It has nothing to do with my point about going too far to confirm your own beliefs.

    Magic states that what he has just said has 'nothing to do' with BlueWing going too far to confirm his biases.

    Claim 2 and Claim 3 are slightly inconsistent. In claim 2 Magic exhorts bluewing to listen to others, not necessarily to buy into their claims because of how strongly they feel about them. Listening to others is means to the end of avoiding your own biases by entertaining ideas foreign to yours. Thus, you should learn from discussion with others to avoid the confirmation of your own biases. This is the explicit claim Magic Poriferan makes in point 2.

    Yet in his very next sentence, point 3, he renounces this very claim--he states that his earlier assertions had NOTHING to do with BlueWing going too far to confirm his own biases.





    He starts his sentence with 'I'm disgusted', as a value judgment. This was said in a context which was supposed to be in the realm of impersonal discussion. One who is in closest affinity with Thinking, or a dominant Thinker would rely on value judgments as means of last resort. Yet Magic is eager to pronounce such statements quickly, even in places where they are not relevant.

    We all make value judgments, as well have Feeling within their our psychic economy. The difference between a Thinking type and a Feeling type is that the Thinker is in closer natural affinity with his Thinking than Feeling. He uses Thinking first and most naturally. Feeling least naturally. Very often intense Thinking types, especially in their youth (Magic's profile indicates that he is 19 years of age, therefore in his youth), are not comfortable with direct use of Feeling. Most of us do not develop our inferior function to a sound degree till our late 30s or 40s, this means that we are not naturally comfortable using such a function fluently in early stages of our lives. Especially would not be comfortable enough to use our inferior function as explicitly in the context where the dominant function is highly vouched for. In other words, a natural Thinker in this situation would be uncomfortable making explicit value judgments in Earnestness for many reasons, salient of which is that the situation evokes impersonal judgment most of all which is antithetical to value judgment.

    It is clear that I have made value judgments in that thread, yet the difference between mine and that of Magic is that mine were clearly said in jest and were not directly expressed. They were subtle. Magic's proposition is not subtle, it is explicit. 'I am disgusted'.

    Thus, in the last 2 points it is insinuated that Magic is unlikely to have Feeling as an inferior function because he uses it explicitly in a context where Feeling is not evoked directly, and his implicit attitude of 'winner/looser' in debate insinuates a preferrence for Extroverted Thinking rather than Introverted.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...0-post201.html

    In post 201, I reiterate that truth is an end in itself and how people feel about the truth does not matter. Doing otherwise leads to absurd conclusions, as for example, if a televangelist screams at me 'God exists!' I should not buy his argument only because he feels strongly about it. I should not buy it because he has not given any rationale to support the aforementioned proposition.

    Indeed, Magic's claims in the previous posts were not clearly stated and did not follow a clear pattern (one of my initial criticisms of his thought concerning the likelihood of him having a Thinking preferrence). This is why it took me several paragraphs to decipher and summarize his message.

    Accordingly, in response to his claim, I merely had to reiterate my earlier proposition that truth is objective and impersonal in its own right as it was close to impossible to respond to Magic'c proposition on the spot. Only now, after much careful reflection I think I have figured out what he was saying, yet it is certainly far from clear what he had in mind.

    Again, the reason for this is the lack of logical interrelation between his thoughts. They seem to be disconnected. As again, I draw the reader's attention to my earlier proposition.



    "Summary: Point 1:I never stated that truth has something to do with how people feel about it! Point 2:You should learn through debating! (?..not sure what he meant by this)I have difficulty seeing how the 2 claims are connected. In the first claim he states that he agrees with my earlier point that truth is purely impersonal and how people feel about this does not matter. Yet in the second point he seems to insinuate that debating, or dialogue with others should help you learn. "

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...8-post200.html

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Magic responds to my post 201 where I reiterate my claim that debating is strictly concerned with the pursuit of truth. One should not be moved by the passions of others in his decision whether he ought or ought not to change his mind. (Hence my televangelist example)

    In post 202 he responds.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...6-post202.html


    "Yes... That's right. I would not make descisions based on what people like. "

    Magic agrees in this statement that we should not make decisions concerning the truth based on what people like.

    His next sentence is slightly inconsistent with the previous.

    "Most people here have concluded that you have miserably failed to understand what is right. "

    What have we here?

    In claim 1 magic states that one should not make decisions based concerning the truth based on what people like or dislike. Yet in the following claim he states that most people have concludes that BlueWing has 'miserably failed to understand what is right' or that BlueWing is wrong. (The reader should take note of the choice of words employed by magic. Miserably failed to understand what is 'right', not what is true. Right is in closer affinity with right in terms of moral rectitude than true in terms of a simple problem of logic. Miserably failed is certainly an intensely emotionally loaded terminology misfitting the impersonal environment it is placed in. Again, this goes in support of my earlier claim that a natural Thinking would have his dispassionate faculties evoked in a discussion concerning ethics of epistemology, or what and by what means should a thinker accept as the truth. Yet Magic wastes no time to load his propositions with a value judgment. Once more, here he is very explicit 'miserably failed' about his value judgment, whilst most Thinkers, especially of his age would be rather subtle about their value judgments. Their Feeling faculties would be much less evoked than their Thinking faculties and therefore the former would be overshadowed by the latter. Overshadowed to such a great degree where there simply would not be enough room for such an overt value judgment as 'miserably failed'. A thinker in such a case likely would state that BlueWing's claim was false, or incorrect, or he has arrived at a mistaken notion. He would treat the matter as more impersonal than personal. Yet Magic presents the situation as if BlueWing is on a quest for something of personal significance, something that is not cold and dispassionate as the truth, but something that we are fully emotionally engaged in.)

    Thus here we see that the two claims are first of all irrelevant, or for the very least only tangentially relevant, as I remind the reader than in the first claim Magic states that from the standpoint of truth it does not matter how other people feel, yet in the second claim he states that most people have agreed that BlueWing is wrong. Difficult to see the logical connection between the two claims. They are more antithetical to one another rather than in support of one another.

    In sentence 3. Magic States

    "They too, use reasoning, and critical analysis, and logic to combat you."

    This claim is logically connected to his claim 2 indeed. Most people have agreed that you have false beliefs, and they used faculties of critical thought as likely means to the end of arriving at a proposition that you harbor false beliefs. This is not exactly what Magic maintains, yet this is the most efficient way I see to make sense of his proposition.

    Thus in claim 2 Magic proposes that people have agreed that BlueWing is 'wrong', and in proposition 3 he states that they were qualified to make such a judgment because they used faculties of critical analysis.

    No contradiction immanent in this set.

    What do we see as an entailment of claims 2 and 3? People have agreed that you're wrong. They are qualified to make such a judgment, therefore because they are qualified, I insinuate magic shall next state that I should embrace their judgment. (Will Magic make such a claim next in proposition 4, 5 or 6? Lets find out..)

    If he would, however, this shall contradict is claims 1.

    "Yes... That's right. I would not make descisions based on what people like."

    Namely, that, as aforementioned, one should not accept certain propositions as true strictly on behalf of testimony of others. This is the famous informal fallacy of an appeal ot authority. Or believing a proposition because someone of authority has made the claim and not because we see reasons in their own right to believe it true.

    Does Magic Poriferan commit the fallacy of an appeal to authority in this case? Lets investigate onto claims 4, 5 and 6.

    Proposition 4: "Plurality isn't everything, it's not even much, but it does account for something. " Magic Poriferan.

    Summary: Plurality does not mean all. (It is not even everything.) It does not mean much. "Its not even much". But it means something. "but it does account for something"

    Okay, what do we say about this?

    Magic's main claim in proposition 4 is that plurality means something. This contradicts his claim 1, as I have interpreted it to mean that one should not embrace ideas as the truth based on opinions of others or 'plurality'.

    Yet, here Magic insinuates that 'plurality' should play some role in one's decision concerning what he should or should not accept as the truth.

    Magic's claim 1 and claim 4 could be rendered consistent, since he did not say that the opinions of others should not play any role in one's decision concerning what is true, he only said that one would not a decision wholly based on what others think. Yet he should still be directly influenced by what others think in this decision to some degree. 'Plurality means something'.

    This may exonerate magic from the previous charge of contradiction, yet not from the charge of informal fallacy of appeal to authority. He states that 'plurality must mean something'. Or in other words, to some degree it should directly impact how one thinks. Or in other words, we are to be influenced to whatever degree Magic shall prescribe (not exactly clear how much 'something' is), solely by virtue of 'plurality'. Not independent reasoning. This is a fallacy of an appeal to authority as credence is given to a proposition based on testimony of others and not reasoning.

    Lets examine his proposition 4 one more time.

    Proposition 4: "Plurality isn't everything, it's not even much, but it does account for something. "

    Only the third part of the sentence is necessary to make the point. First two parts 'plurality is not everything, it is not even much' are superfluous. They are emotive expressions rather than terms stated from a linguistically precise standpoint. Isn't 'everything' and 'isn't much' are far from clearly defined terms. Such fuzziness of thinking is not at all indicative of a natural logician equipped with Introverted Thinking as his dominant faculty. This is in allusion to my earlier criticism concerning Magic's lack of clear structure in thought.

    Proposition 5: "If a large group of people, including people you know should be skilled with logic and possesing of large educations, tell you that you are wrong, all for the same reasons...you might want to consider that they're right. Just consider it. "

    Ah, now that is different! He does not state that only because people say you are wrong, you must assume that you are. You should merely entertain their propositions from a dispassionate angle. It is certainly the case that all ideas should be entertained from a dispassionate angle, irrespectively of where they came from, to say that you should entertain them only because large group of people insist on this is a tacit appeal to authority in its own right. A proposition is either meritorious or not by virtue of itself, the authority it is supported by isnt relevant.

    Magic would be exonerated from the fallacy of an appeal to authority if he simply said 'just think about this, and see if it is true', but this is not what he maintained. The driving force behind the necessity to consider the proposition is that it has been vouched for by others. Therefore this insinuates the need to be directly influenced by the will of others. This is inconsistent with Magic's proposition 1.
    "Yes... That's right. I would not make descisions based on what people like."


    Proposition 6:"Consistency, repetition, plurality... You do understand pragmatic learning, don't you? Empiricism?"

    Because many people have repetitively stated a claim, there must be something to what they say. This is an overt informal fallacy of an appeal to authority. In proposition 6 it is stated explicitly that there is something to an idea only because of 'plurality'.

    What could he have meant by 'consistency, repitition'. Perhaps because he has mentioned not only 'plurality' but also consistency and repetition, it may not follow that all he is saying in this claim is that if so many people buy it, there must be something to it.

    He may easily have meant that by virtue of law of induction, as for example, since so many times when most people said X was the case, they were right. They were right 9 previous times, they will probably be right the 10th time. This claim would have been inductively cogent if he had managed to cite evidence of most people having made a proposition very often in the past and have been correct. It is certainly the case that when most experts agree on a proposition, they are right most of the time. Yet Magic needs to show that the people who have disagreed with BlueWing were experts, or a group of individuals who have in the past made decisions as a group and were right most of the time. Because he has not cited such evidence, the claim is not inductively cogent.

    It should be noted however, that it may be prudent to believe that what experts say, when many of them combine to make a decision, as they are usually right. Usually, however, not always. But this is not justifiable in terms of pure reasoning itself. It is an informal fallacy of an appeal to authority because credence is given to a proposition not by virtue of validity or soundness, but by virtue of the proposition having been vouched for by proper authorities. There have been many instances in intellectual history where the majority of experts have been wrong. A striking case in point is Galileo's discovery concerning Laws of gravity which have contravened the Aristotelian dogma endorsed by most scholars of the day. Discovery concerning roundness of earth and rotation of Earth around the sun and not vice versa is another example. Most scholars of the day held for vice versa to be the case.

    Breakthroughs in science and philosophy have been made not by virtue of the practical decision that Magic advocates, namely 'experts are right most of the time, so it is wise to listen to them', but by virtue of thinkers having recognized such reasoning as fallacious. They have sought to figure out how the world works on their own endeavor instead of taking the word of the authorities for face value.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above argument gives us reasons to believe that Magic is not an INTP. The question of what his true type is requires a seperate argument.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #448
    Reigning Bologna Princess Rajah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    1,774

    Default

    Jesus Christ, BlueWing, will you just admit you're an INTJ already?


    And I read through the coherent bits of your Magic Poriferan critique. I don't think those suffice to support your claim.


    I... suppose. Yeah!

  9. #449

    Default

    I couldn't plow through all of BW's post, but I do think Magic's INTP.
    Something Witty

  10. #450

    Default

    Holy shit, BlueWing. That was very interesting. I liked it! I just can't believe you spent that much time on it. I'm sure that you probably enjoyed doing it, though.
    "When a resolute young fellow steps up the great bully, the world, and takes him boldly by the beard, he is often surprised to find that it comes off in his hand, and that it was only tied on to scare away the timid adventurers." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Similar Threads

  1. TypeCentral Members Psychoanalyze Your Avatar for Free
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6771
    Last Post: Today, 12:35 AM
  2. Replies: 126
    Last Post: 03-22-2016, 08:15 AM
  3. TypeCentral Members- Casting Call as Disney Characters
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 260
    Last Post: 03-06-2016, 03:10 AM
  4. TypeCentral Members- Cast them as musicians
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 09-21-2015, 04:35 PM
  5. It's a mystery. (moved from Mistyped MBTIC Members)
    By entropie in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-31-2008, 06:24 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