Kalach
Filthy Apes!
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,310
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
As opposed to your reasoning. Which is "hidden" (generously) or non-existent (likely). It's certainly not consistent.
It doesn't have to be. It is, as you note, just facts collected to make a picture. The only "consistency" if it can be called that is between collected facts and supposed type. The collection is supposed to prove.
You imagined something you said would support a conviction of mine which you claim is impossible for my type to have? Well. That makes about as much sense as anything else you've written in this thread.
See? "You imagined something you said would support a conviction of mine...." Finely warped, nicely coerced.
In fact you are just throwing "facts" and hoping they stick to your own convictions. Show your working, instead of just your blind prejudice, if you can, and we might listen.
pffft, you're coercing facts, I'm collecting them, eventually we meet in the middle, holding a very large number of bent facts.
Or else show how I have "coerced facts". Show me SOME DAMNED THING. Or don't. Just accept that you have your convictions and we have ours and never the twain.
To begin showing that facts get coerced is at least to insist that when you've reasoned from some presentation I've made to some conclusion you draw, you've handled the facts inappropriately. And for that, basically, pick any sentence you've written. However, to find out what "inappropriately" means, consider for instance, chosen largely at random:
"When you opened the thread, you apparently weren't sure yourself of his type. The only introverted thinker you wouldn't countenance is INTP, you wouldn't even put it on the table (despite your own intuitions that he might in fact be one)."
Four sentences/clauses, two of which are "coerced" - guess which ones - but as a clue, the worst coercion is inside the brackets. I have no such intuitions. I still don't countenance INTP. I do however hear my own voice too often saying this and I've grown wary of losing contact with "facts". I'd like to hear other reasonings. I'd like to know of different facts. It would satisfy a need to connect with truths outside me. I would love to be surprised. As humiliating as it would also be to be wrong, I'd love to be in contact with not just the facts we have, but a collection of facts that are known to be adequate in demonstrating type.
The coercion going on then is, at least, the removal of my context from my presentations. Whatever context you're adding to them is invented. Nicely invented. Reasonably invented. Invented with entertaining purpose. But invented. Were you to be "doing" extroverted thinking, whatever context you expected to use for understanding other people's presentations, it wouldn't be one you invented. You'd require them to tell you what their context was, and you'd run with that.
So, "coercion", or just not extroverted thinking? The unconscious decides.