tcda
psicobolche
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,292
- MBTI Type
- intp
- Enneagram
- 5
Stop being constructive, it destroys the basis for sweeping knee-jerk rants!
Was that supposed to be a reason not to?Stop being constructive, it destroys the basis for sweeping knee-jerk rants!
It's because we are more interesed in the discussion itself rather than what is being discussed. HOW we discuss things -- framework and underlying foundation -- is more important than content [...]
I've always associated this with INTs - especially INTPs - and can't help to find it meaningless and boring, the very least.
If I don't think it worth my energy, or it doesn't matter to me I won't comment on it - end of story.
So why does it matter to you that it matters to me what the INTPs do?
(seriously, I've expected something more than a fifth grade explanation of "don't like it, don't eat it!")
So why does it matter to you that it matters to me what the INTPs do?
(seriously, I've expected something more serious than a fifth grade explanation of "don't like it, don't eat it!")
I am just curious as to why it worries you so much what others do when you don't have to participate??
In any case though, I don't see any support for the claim that most INTP's behave that way.
A fifth grader in their simple observations can be a lot wiser than many beyond high school age
I am just curious as to why it worries you so much what others do when you don't have to participate??
The trouble for me is that such people usually jump into a thread with something along the lines of "OMG a logical fallacy, you appealed to majority sentiment/historical precedent/etc.! you must be an ESFJ not an NT!"
When a whole forum runs along those lines, it becomes a shame, because a promising concept (an INTP/INTJ forum) becomes overtaken by the most exaggerated and unhealthy elements of a type, dictating a form of perverse "pure logic" which runs in the face of any realistic or creative thinking. (one of the reasons I post on Typology Central instead).
So I think Litvyak has a point here actually.
Of course this is not to criticize people who are interested that a debate should be logical or who call logical fallacies now and again when it's necessarry to do so. Rather extreme cases who think that the abstract logic is superior to the real issues being discussed (or who repress their Fi/Fe to the extent that they lie to themselves that emotionally-driven opinions are purely logical and objective).
I've spent/spend so much time on IC that I can spot a fallacy from a mile away. Which I must grudgingly admit, I'm pretty grateful for. Also, I can spot when it's being done in good faith, and when someone is trying to pull a fast one. Which dictates how I respond to it. If someone is making an honest mistake then I will take the time to engage them, but if someone is simply "trying to be right by whatever means" I don't see the point in that dialog. Calling bullshit by listing the fallacy/fallacies in question is good enough for me.
I don't mind it if it's correctly applied. There are times when it's correct to call a fallacy, but on some levels of reasoning "formal logic" simply falls down. For example in mathematics we can prove that at some times a = -a. That flies in the face of formal logic. Or we can show that a "vacuum" is not empty, but a process by which particles and anti-particles negate each other. Or that the angles of a triangle don't necessarily add up to 180 degress on a large enough scale.
So in some cases these things have their place, but a genuine historical/political discussion can't be policed take place entirely within the bounds of "formal logic". At least in my opinion.
See I could go into great detail about why that's not true or I can just say that's a propositional fallacy.
While in this particular case I don't believe you are trying to pull a fast one, it's just simpler to say that's a propositional fallacy than going into the "that's not true because..."
I don't see why it's a propositional fallacy (I just looked the term up). I didn't say formal logic is never true, I said it's sometimes untrue, i.e. it can't encompass all of reality, so you can't have an effective debate about "reality" (which is what politics and history discussions should seek to get to the heart of) on those grounds.
It's arguably untrue under a very exact circumstance (Math) that doesn't include in the circumstance you named (History and Politics). Also I'm pretty sure that someone better versed in formal logic than I can explain how those exceptions you named aren't really exceptions.
Yes. I'm a marxist.
When this is used as a counter-example against formal logic you can just stop reading for he has clearly no understanding of formal logic. The group Z_2 of elements {0,1} and operation * where a*b = a+b mod 2, is a system which is logically consistent and this guy is