User Tag List

First 59459509549557558559560561569609659 Last

Results 5,581 to 5,590 of 7100

  1. #5581
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    Enfj
    Enneagram
    7w8 so
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    819

    Default

    Estp ti both but I feel a gamma vibe

  2. #5582
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    Enfj
    Enneagram
    7w8 so
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    What kind of arguments are more likely to convince you that something is true, assuming that you have good reason to doubt the truth:

    1) A large set of statistical data confirming the correlations of things?
    2) A theoretical model with specific examples of how things work?

    (And no, this is NOT comparing what you think it's comparing, it's not S vs N ... just be honest with your answer.)
    I have a question, so you say I am se fi or fi se, whys that if I was esfp, I would have strong fi

  3. #5583
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain_Invincible View Post
    Well, personally I think that 1 would be more likely to convince me that something is true because 2 doesn't make much sense to me. It just shows you how things work, not the actual proof that X has worked over Y. 2 explains the concept, 1 finalizes and defines the concept with proof.
    Part of what I'm getting at is "correlation is not causation" vs "anecdotes aren't conclusive".

    Ni/Se types tend to need narratives, stories, anecdotes. Even the TJs: knowing the workflow of something is more important than having a bunch of statistics about it. Ni/Se types aren't as apt to be convinced by statistics, because raw data doesn't necessarily show the underlying phenomenon.

    Ne/Si types tend to require far-reaching data looking for correlations. When there are a lot of data points, it's really convincing, even if the statistical methods are kind of questionable.

    Not that this is conclusive either way, but I wanted you to have your honest answer before I explained what I was getting at. Does a "story" or a "workflow" or a "dynamic" explain things better to you, or does lots of statistical data explain things better to you?

    ...

    An example of what I'm getting at could be the economic talking heads back in 2005, a few years before the housing bubble burst. Some completely trusted the data, and the data said that all the market indications were "good": all the numbers that needed to be up were up, and the fundamentals were good. Others, however, saw the bubble easily. It's easy to see market bubbles as stories: people have easy credit, people with easy credit are buying houses, and even more people with easy credit are buying houses from those people, and so on. It's obvious that it's all going to come crashing down, but you can't quite predict when, but just that it will. You can see the bubble coming in spite of the market indicators disagreeing with you.

    (Of course, that puts the story/narrative perspective in a good light, but it's fairly easy to see how lots of data is good and that most anecdotes/narratives are rather naive, so I chose the former to illustrate.)
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.
    Likes Forever liked this post

  4. #5584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Part of what I'm getting at is "correlation is not causation" vs "anecdotes aren't conclusive".

    Ni/Se types tend to need narratives, stories, anecdotes. Even the TJs: knowing the workflow of something is more important than having a bunch of statistics about it. Ni/Se types aren't as apt to be convinced by statistics, because raw data doesn't necessarily show the underlying phenomenon.

    Ne/Si types tend to require far-reaching data looking for correlations. When there are a lot of data points, it's really convincing, even if the statistical methods are kind of questionable.

    Not that this is conclusive either way, but I wanted you to have your honest answer before I explained what I was getting at. Does a "story" or a "workflow" or a "dynamic" explain things better to you, or does lots of statistical data explain things better to you?

    ...

    An example of what I'm getting at could be the economic talking heads back in 2005, a few years before the housing bubble burst. Some completely trusted the data, and the data said that all the market indications were "good": all the numbers that needed to be up were up, and the fundamentals were good. Others, however, saw the bubble easily. It's easy to see market bubbles as stories: people have easy credit, people with easy credit are buying houses, and even more people with easy credit are buying houses from those people, and so on. It's obvious that it's all going to come crashing down, but you can't quite predict when, but just that it will. You can see the bubble coming in spite of the market indicators disagreeing with you.

    (Of course, that puts the story/narrative perspective in a good light, but it's fairly easy to see how lots of data is good and that most anecdotes/narratives are rather naive, so I chose the former to illustrate.)
    Oh no... I'm lost now.
    Sometimes I know things are going to collapse/breakdown/something is going to happen from nowhere. Sometimes from following the clues (symbollically/psychically). I look at both sides arguments before making a judgement when I can. One side argues this is good, the other side doesn't, when I am listening to an argument. I use whatever evidence is the most researched and closest to the truth when deciding. And when I make an argument, I plan it ahead, before a debate and refine it as much as I possibly can.

    I do like stories. I do like dynamics and knowing the rhythmn of things, and I do like working to that rhythmn, but I also like statistics to back things up when I have to. If that makes sense?

  5. #5585
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    549 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    41,771

    Default

    I don't really agree on the house bubble story -- I'm pretty clearly Ne/Si, but I instinctively saw it as a bubble that would burst because of the big-picture narrative.

    So while those are two valid "camps," I am not sure you have distinguished between them correctly in terms of functions. I tend to see them as raw data vs data patterning differences, not Ni vs Ne.
    "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

  6. #5586
    lords of summer EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,163

    Default

    Yeah, when I first read the initial question (pre-elaboration), my first instinct was "I prefer anecdotes, but what person in their rational mind would reject accurate statistics?"
    EJCC: "The Big Questions in my life right now: 1) What am I willing to live with? 2) What do I have to live with? 3) What can I change for the better?"
    Coriolis: "Is that the ESTJ Serenity Prayer?"

    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    lawful good (D&D) / ravenclaw + wampus (HP) / boros legion (M:TG)
    conscientious > sensitive > serious (oldham)
    want to ask me something? go for it!
    Likes asynartetic, Chanaynay liked this post

  7. #5587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EJCC View Post
    Yeah, when I first read the initial question (pre-elaboration), my first instinct was "I prefer anecdotes, but what person in their rational mind would reject accurate statistics?"
    Ahem. How do you know what is, and what is not, "accurate"?
    Think.

  8. #5588
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    549 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    41,771

    Default

    Data, data, everywhere, and not a drop to think...
    "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
    Likes uumlau liked this post

  9. #5589

    Default

    Here comes a T-type shit storm.
    Think.

  10. #5590
    lords of summer EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Ahem. How do you know what is, and what is not, "accurate"?
    Damn, Jag, I was hoping I wouldn't have to play my SJ card here (because it isn't super relevant to the discussion of CI's type, since CI is clearly not an SJ):

    - Where the data came from (diverse enough sources? potential biases? where?)
    - How the methodology measures up to ideal statistics/data-collection methodology
    - If I don't care enough to look into the study in great deal, then: how do a variety of trusted scientific sources think this measures up? What are the issues that they see?
    Last edited by EJCC; 09-18-2015 at 09:39 AM. Reason: I thought Captain Invincible was Captain Awesome there for a minute
    EJCC: "The Big Questions in my life right now: 1) What am I willing to live with? 2) What do I have to live with? 3) What can I change for the better?"
    Coriolis: "Is that the ESTJ Serenity Prayer?"

    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    lawful good (D&D) / ravenclaw + wampus (HP) / boros legion (M:TG)
    conscientious > sensitive > serious (oldham)
    want to ask me something? go for it!
    Likes Wind Up Rex liked this post

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • :bye:
  • :)
  • :hi:
  • :happy2:
  • :smile:
  • :wubbie:
  • :D
  • :hug:
  • :wink:
  • ;)
  • :newwink:
  • :(
  • :cry:
  • :doh:
  • :mad:
  • :dry:
  • :shrug:
  • :blush:
  • :mellow:
  • :unsure:

Similar Threads

  1. TypeCentral Members Psychoanalyze Your Avatar for Free
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6892
    Last Post: 07-20-2017, 01:20 PM
  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
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO