Ok lets settle this right now!

[Xander]

?? Uncritical acceptance is never a good thing. You can always listen whle critically reflecting on it.

Your current understanding of the MBTI is being argued against. Mostly the people arguing against you are doing so because they are seeing inconsistencies. Such persons as these are not prone to being all wrong at the same time. Hence perhaps some time for reflection?

I am pleading because I do not wish to set you into a mode of defence nor defiance but would appreciate it if you looked at adjusting your thinking on such matters.

Thanks.

Edit :-
Oh you edited. Swine!!
Listening whilst critically reflecting upon the advice is not a bad thing but acknoledgement of such a process to the advisor tends to avoid insulting the advisor who's advice it is that you are considering. Credit where credit is due.

[SolitaryWalker]

Your current understanding of the MBTI is being argued against. Mostly the people arguing against you are doing so because they are seeing inconsistencies. Such persons as these are not prone to being all wrong at the same time. Hence perhaps some time for reflection?

I am pleading because I do not wish to set you into a mode of defence nor defiance but would appreciate it if you looked at adjusting your thinking on such matters.

Thanks.

Noone in this thread put forth an argument. Only suppositions.

You yourself are in a habit of throwing around suppositions that you make no effort to justify.

I have only seen people say that they see inconsistencies, but they did not even point out what they were, or even less make an argument for what they just said. So, please, unless you think you're ready with your argument, dont give me your conclusions. Premises come first, conclusions later. Never the other way around.

[Xander]

Noone in this thread put forth an argument. Only suppositions.

You yourself are in a habit of throwing around suppositions that you make no effort to justify.

I have only seen people say that they see inconsistencies, but they did not even point out what they were, or even less make an argument for what they just said. So, please, unless you think you're ready with your argument, dont give me your conclusions. Premises come first, conclusions later. Never the other way around.

I'm partially refering to the whole MBTI advice thread too.

Don't get me wrong I'm not going for a beat down here. Please do take apart my arguments but if you are doing so whilst acknoledging parts as valid then making such comments clear wil improve your chances of a meaningful exchange whilst lessening your chances of an argument.

[raincrow007]

Premises come first, conclusions later. Never the other way around.

Where'd ya get that conclusion from?

[SolitaryWalker]

Where'd ya get that conclusion from?

Good question.

I've thought about Aristotle's Syllogism and how logical arguments tend to work. Generally, when I say I know something is true, I say it is so not because I've just decided it is (conclusions) but because I have a reason for that and then I explain my reasoning and show why I think it is true.

So Premise 1:Observation
Premise 2:Another observation in connection with the first one
Conclusion: Synthesis of premise 1 and 2,

I'm partially refering to the whole MBTI advice thread too.

Don't get me wrong I'm not going for a beat down here. Please do take apart my arguments but if you are doing so whilst acknoledging parts as valid then making such comments clear wil improve your chances of a meaningful exchange whilst lessening your chances of an argument.

Most of the dead end arguments result from intellectual miscommunications. This was the case between gatsby and I, we are on the same page now.

[ptgatsby]

So Premise 1:Observation
Premise 2:Another observation in connection with the first one
Conclusion: Synthesis of premise 1 and 2,

Most of the dead end arguments result from intellectual miscommunications. This was the case between gatsby and I, we are on the same page now.

Now that you say this, we are!

(Observation -> Hypothesis -> Validation -> Conclusion)

[Xander]

SW,

A mantra for you

It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it,
It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it,
It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it.

["?"]

With no intent to steal threads, but I responded to your inquiry on this subject, wherein you said:

I would argue that IJs are more irrational than EPs because their irrational nature is internal and therefore has greater impact on them? As well as that EPs have a judging function on the inside and this makes them more rational in the way that you've used that word.

My response was:

If you make that argument, then it would appear that your theory is based on the introverted function, not the extraverted, that determines ratioanlity. In that case, you are claiming that EPs are more rational than EJs (who use perceiving functions on their auxiliary). It runs counter to Jung's theory that the rational/irrational function has an extraverted attitude. I have never read where he alludes to introverts being rational/irrational in using their dominant function. Jung also clearly makes the distinction that judging means rational and perceiving means irrational.

Not knowing how Jung would respond to Myers-Briggs' theory on creating the fourth dichotomy, but to follow a line of reasoning, and if he was to side with Myers-Briggs usage of a fourth dichotomy, then he most likely would disagree with her theory on how introverts use the functions, instead considering the Socionics to be more viable. I think that Myers-Briggs theory works only because Jung does allude to J=rational and P=irrational only in the extraverted sense.

[SolitaryWalker]

With no intent to steal threads, but I responded to your inquiry on this subject, wherein you said:My response was:

Jung posited that Te applies as rational to the extenral world and Ne applies as irrational to that as well. And he gave an argument for this. Same argument could be applied to how Ti applies as rational to the internal and Ni as irrational to the internal. Same argument that Jung gave for Te/Ne applies here as well. I see no reason why it would not.

[nightning]

Jung posited that Te applies as rational to the extenral world and Ne applies as irrational to that as well. And he gave an argument for this. Same argument could be applied to how Ti applies as rational to the internal and Ni as irrational to the internal. Same argument that Jung gave for Te/Ne applies here as well. I see no reason why it would not.

*blinks* You gotten me confused... If that is true, Ni cannot interact well with Ti, nor can Ne interact well with Te. For rational and irrational processes do not play well together. But my Ni and Ti clearly can function together as a unit...