• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Fe Fakeness

five

New member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
141
MBTI Type
ZZZZ
Enneagram
5w6
For those here that don't know what bayesian is. Google's Gmail spam filter is a good example. If you start marking messages from you friends as "Spam" -it's very bad for the system. As good stuff in the future will get blocked.

Hence you need to start with "seed" data that is accurate and continue to build on a foundation of a priori knowledge.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
*Bayesian... filter... still doesn't understand... how he's... using... "a priori"...*
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
[MENTION=13748]five[/MENTION]

I suspect that to some degree you know what you're talking about, but you're using your own words and analogies, apparently developed independently of any community that studies MBTI and function theory.

I ran into the same sort of thing in software development with respect to "Design Patterns". In one respect, these patterns are useless to me: they don't help me figure out how to design software, because I do that largely intuitively, based on my requirements and how best to create a simple, efficient design. They do become useful to me in a very different respect, however, in that after having created a design, I can use standard language to describe what I've designed and why I've designed it that way, e.g., "Here is a facade, and this is a singleton, and up here we have a flywheel." So in a sentence with three key words, I've explained fairly complicated design concepts that would take hours of discussion. But because I've studied up on what things are called, and my colleagues have done likewise, we spend all of 5 minutes to understand the design, at which point possible changes/modifications become much easier to communicate.

Read up in the forum archives on topics of concern to you, and figure out how your ideas translate into a more common language.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
All NTJ's use a bayesian approach to truth.

All NTP's use a frequentist approach to truth.

The approach one uses is tied to cognitives functions. The cognitive functions one uses determines the person's type. Cognitives are neural circuitry in the brain. This is mapped out eventually in our DNA.

I can't make it clearer.

You are getting annoyed because you have no way to see the truth of what I'm saying. Your own approach is not a priori, so you cannot evaluate my statements with respect to a global framework only withing the conceptual framework of MBTI space. This is very limiting however.

Classic Te vs Ti and Ne vs Ni.

Also instead of getting personal at the perceived arrogance of tone on my part, how about simply asking what you don't understand in a more structured and precise way and separate out the feeling from your response so that truth may be entertained better.

One can be arrogant in tone and humble in content. Or arrogant in content and humble in tone.

Being arrogant in tone has no implication on the objective truth of the statements.

It is rather arrogant to assume I'm arrogant. I merely pointed out the observation to continue to assert I'm the only INTJ around here and that has key relevance to the point I was making of bayesian (NTJ) vs frequentist (NTP).

In a bayesian model the node are treated with different weights some exceedingly extreme. Thus if an ACTUAL INTJ is talking about INTJ's then that will count say 90% vs 10% of someone else who is probably not one. In this case we can assume node as person. Hence whatever I'm going to say will just be another data point in the NTP's view. And it all gets averaged out. NTP's use statistical views on everything,without even realising it, using their Si's and Ne's for the data.

Now I'm not saying NTP's don't use bayesian approaches in the context of a model sometimes, but that is not their overall approach to EVERY piece of data coming in to their senses, it is not fundamental to the hardware, it is a emulated approach.

Eg1 if I go to supper and someone is explaining a business idea it is getting evaluated from a bayesian approach. I may know absolutely nothing about the industry he is talking about but I can make insights based on a priori knowledge from other domains.

If someone ask's me the if it's summer or winter, I take a bayesian approach to answer.
If someone want's to know who will win the 2012 elections my answer is bayesian. You may have noticed I talk about "fundamentals" before. These are simply important nodes in the NTJ bayesian hierarchy.

That is what gives NTJ's the confidence, the bayesian model just spits out an answer and its assumed "true" until proven otherwise. Proven otherwise, means shown evidence to cause the bayesian network to readjust itself to accomodate a learned fact.

Any of this making sense to anyone?

Here is another example.

Let's say my buddy Cliff says: "Hey Jesus told me Steve Jobs died of AIDS actually not cancer"

I will take a Bayesian approach to that fact. Here is what happens.

Does Jesus exist?
No (very strong node and high up in the hierachy)For Ti's sake No means 99.99% no etc.

Is the condition "Jesus existing" necessary for the statement Cliff made, necessary to be true?
Yes.

Therefore ignore the statement. No information can be learned from it. Steve Jobs may or may not have died of AIDS, but what Cliff is saying takes us no nearer to the truth of that.
Lastly, before one writes it off completely, can it be possible that actually Cliff is telling the truth?

Possibly but then he'd have to produce extraordinary evidence because "Jesus exists" being true, would have a profound effect on all subnodes in the hierarchy and a major shift would have to take place and recalibration. Hence the push back will be strong against the statement will be strong. Hence the requirement for evidence must be extremely high.

This will be viewed then by those that don't use a priori knowledge in everything they do to seem "arrogant" or "judgmental" etc or a whole slew of touchy feely things.

That is how truth works for all NTJ's.

I'm probably almost certainly maybe definitely bad at explaining things. ;)

NTJ's knowledge is built from the ground up. Imagine the effort required to move a large foundational slab of concrete sitting under the Empire State building.

Those foundations are key nodes. the higher up the hierarchy, or lower down (if we using the building analogy). The more entrenched those nodes will be. So when you bring information to the party and it attacks those nodes you going to get a severe reaction if you bring shoddy claims.

NTP's approach things in isolation. They look at a theory and dissect it to make sure it's internally consistent with itself (Ti). They may also wait for data from Si and Ne to test the strength of the theory. These theories exist for the most part in isolation of other theories.

For the NTJ there is only one model of the reality. Theories just plug into a giant latticework and get absorbed as part of the bayesian network.

Does this make any more sense?

One can see how I operate and live and breath this. I don't have to pretend because it comes naturally to me.

For example you can see how I used similar reasoning like the example I quoted above, to filter Zarathasura posts. My logic was his posts are not congruent with my Se experience of Ni Te users nor is his logic or style of debate etc. He has plenty of Fe and ego etc. He says he is one, which contradicts my bayesian network, I will rather ignore everything until that is resolved. Bayesian networks do not work well if the knowledge is polluted.

So he could be an INTJ but then I'd have to throwout almost 10 years of my own experience in real life and re-evaluate so many things. Hence the burden on proof is rather on him. If he doesn't want to prove it, that's fine too, he goes on the the ignorelist.

Now he of course would be welcome to do the same to me. But if he wants to engage it will be on mutual terms. My condition being that a person must accurately type themselves before I will consider what they are saying with regards to MBTI.

I try to stick to that ideal, and will assume people type themselves correctly until evidence indicates to the contrary.

That is not to say others aren't mistyping themselves as well, they probably are and I'm not just picking on Z. That is just a data point I can say for certain, there are plenty of less smart guys that aren't even on the radar.

For those here that don't know what bayesian is. Google's Gmail spam filter is a good example. If you start marking messages from you friends as "Spam" -it's very bad for the system. As good stuff in the future will get blocked.

Hence you need to start with "seed" data that is accurate and continue to build on a foundation of a priori knowledge.
I see now what you mean. You are needlessly describing how you filter truth candidates through a coherence matrix that allows only those to pass on into consideration which are compatible with your fundamental convictions. Si does that; Ni does that. I believe everybody does that.

You also said that evidence can persuade you to skip the coherence criterion, which is to say that statement-world correspondence can persuade you. After that, of course, the fundamental convictions need readjustment.

So you favor a coherence-correspondence theory of truth.

Do you consider your way of explaining all this effective?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Gives mad respect to [MENTION=8031]Ginkgo[/MENTION] for not only derailing the whole forum with this thread, but for producing a thread which, while derailing the whole forum, somehow managed to derail itself, rerail, and then derail again. We've got bonafide derail acrobatics goin on here.
:hifive:
 

five

New member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
141
MBTI Type
ZZZZ
Enneagram
5w6
I see now what you mean. You are needlessly describing how you filter truth candidates through a coherence matrix that allows only those to pass on into consideration which are compatible with your fundamental convictions. Si does that; Ni does that. I believe everybody does that.

You also said that evidence can persuade you to skip the coherence criterion, which is to say that statement-world correspondence can persuade you. After that, of course, the fundamental convictions need readjustment.

So you favor a coherence-correspondence theory of truth.

Do you consider your way of explaining all this effective?

Correspondence theory of truth is exactly how I see truth.

Thanks, Yes I concur. No it's not effective. But together me and an INTP are work very well, though he is too lazy to come on here :(, because he just translates and has so much Si history of me it becomes a way we can collectively discover more truth and repackage. Together we have our own community in a sense. But its all in the real world and we use real world data and observations to make sure things stay accurate.

That said when I do go into unknown territories even if what I'm saying makes sense, others do have a hard time understanding me, because of my lack of terminology or "way things are done" Si. That however does not change the fundamental objective truth of what I was saying, regardless of how eloquently or crudely it was put.

It is possible to have a truth that or insight no-one else has had of course, but be unable to express it.

I do see I was out of my depth in some ways, especially with regards to the language. Ni is like that. It doesn't have a common dictionary. I appreciate the help.

What are other opinions on truth? Is there a divide? etc

What is your own view on truth? What position do you take?
 

five

New member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
141
MBTI Type
ZZZZ
Enneagram
5w6
I see now what you mean. You are needlessly describing how you filter truth candidates through a coherence matrix that allows only those to pass on into consideration which are compatible with your fundamental convictions. Si does that; Ni does that. I believe everybody does that.

You also said that evidence can persuade you to skip the coherence criterion, which is to say that statement-world correspondence can persuade you. After that, of course, the fundamental convictions need readjustment.

So you favor a coherence-correspondence theory of truth.

Do you consider your way of explaining all this effective?

Also your response would seem to indicate that you gained no insights that were useful or interesting to you from my posts as you didn't indicate this.

Is that true or accurate reflection? I'm asking not because I want emotional "yay"s, but because I'm curious so I can recalibrate my output in future.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
MEDIUM_10803_2010_1133_Figb_HTML.jpg
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
five, what do you intend by showing your chart? What does that prove?
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Correspondence theory of truth is exactly how I see truth.
I am not surprised. That is the standard.

That said when I do go into unknown territories even if what I'm saying makes sense, others do have a hard time understanding me, because of my lack of terminology or "way things are done" Si. That however does not change the fundamental objective truth of what I was saying, regardless of how eloquently or crudely it was put.

It is possible to have a truth that or insight no-one else has had of course, but be unable to express it.

I do see I was out of my depth in some ways, especially with regards to the language. Ni is like that. It doesn't have a common dictionary. I appreciate the help.
I always thought Ni-Te would seek to express the idea as efficiently as possible without much background noise: to put it in a nutshell, as the nice saying goes.

What are other opinions on truth? Is there a divide? etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

What is your own view on truth? What position do you take?
I advocate a pragmatic theory of truth that, while acknowledging that 'the world' (the thing in itself or whatever you want to call it) is a certain way, holds as true those statements which are most reliable, those which, in other words, we consider sufficient to base our decisions on. The words 'true' and 'truth', therefore, have two meanings: one that correlates to the world as it is and may forever be inaccessible, and one that correlates to the statements about it that have proven reliable.

Reliability, eventually, is achieved through a loose sense of correspondence (there are many ways to describe the world) and coherence (we try not to, but we often do hold contradicting beliefs).

Also your response would seem to indicate that you gained no insights that were useful or interesting to you from my posts as you didn't indicate this.

Is that true or accurate reflection? I'm asking not because I want emotional "yay"s, but because I'm curious so I can recalibrate my output in future.
Yes, that is true.
 

five

New member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
141
MBTI Type
ZZZZ
Enneagram
5w6
five, what do you intend by showing your chart? What does that prove?

Just add's additional credibility.

Anyone can say they've spent years doing typing IRL. I really have. Hence you know that the username "five" can be trusted on that point.

More points that keep concurring build trust and reputation.

That is important for ensuring more efficient communication down the line.

Actions vs words. I actually heard someone on hear calling Keirsey an "idiot" once, well they are just plain arrogant. Put it another way does the smart MBA grad who graduated cum laude know more about business than the dropout Steve Jobs?
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Just add's additional credibility.

Anyone can say they've spent years doing typing IRL. I really have. Hence you know that the username "five" can be trusted on that point.

More points that keep concurring build trust and reputation.

That is important for ensuring more efficient communication down the line.

It doesn't work because there is not a way to tell whether you're doing it right. I can see this is very important to you so I want make it clear to you that showing your chart does not help you with credibility. That is because there is no way to tell whether your assessments were correct or not, since we don't know the people. It's just a chart with people's names under the headings. It demonstrates that you are thinking about this subject, but there's no way to know if your thinking is any good. You could have typed all the people wrong -- there's no way to tell.
 

five

New member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
141
MBTI Type
ZZZZ
Enneagram
5w6
Reliability, eventually, is achieved through a loose sense of correspondence (there are many ways to describe the world) and coherence (we try not to, but we often do hold contradicting beliefs).

I very seldom have contradicting beliefs existing for very long, its unstable and causes stress. When there is stress, I need to resolve things. For example untruth sits and gnaws at me. Hence why I'm so confident in "The Truth". I assume things to be true until shown to be not so. Unlike STJ's who's beliefs are more routed in the past (Si), I actively seek out ways to break down my system. I enjoy being wrong as a consequence.

Ni is a good at getting to the objective truth expediently because it works across domains.

Do you agree?
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Gives mad respect to [MENTION=8031]Ginkgo[/MENTION] for not only derailing the whole forum with this thread, but for producing a thread which, while derailing the whole forum, somehow managed to derail itself, rerail, and then derail again. We've got bonafide derail acrobatics goin on here.
:hifive:

Sometimes you just apply a bit of pressure to a pressure point and the whole quantum infrastructure crumbles. ;)
 

five

New member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
141
MBTI Type
ZZZZ
Enneagram
5w6
It doesn't work because there is not a way to tell whether you're doing it right. I can see this is very important to you so I want make it clear to you that showing your chart does not help you with credibility. That is because there is no way to tell whether your assessments were correct or not, since we don't know the people. It's just a chart with people's names under the headings. It demonstrates that you are thinking about this subject, but there's no way to know if your thinking is any good. You could have typed all the people wrong -- there's no way to tell.

See below.

... and drollness.


Well, Ed Wood shot films for years - in real life, too.

Right but his films were shit.



I have created a lot of real world success using my approach, bayesian and models. My approach to success is to not fail, which is quite different from say an STP's approach which would be opportunistically driven.

I would have to be delusional. Unless you think people just "get lucky". If you really think building something from the ground up is just chance then you are delusional. I used it everyday in business to interact, to build teams etc. The teams wouldn't work properly if everyone was mistyped and I had no clue.

I couldn't have predicted I needed a new CEO who was ESTP to take over from me to drive promotion and communicating messaging and to grow the company. etc. I saw this years ago. MBTI helped immensely.

Here is a my management team.

Rupert (ENTJ) Candice (ISFJ)
Cliff (ENTP) Alan (ISTP)
Gino (ESTJ) Paul (ISTJ)
Tim (ESTP)

Anyone want to guess who goes where? Of course the Finance Exec isn't the ENTP etc. You can't just guess your way. All statements I make can be called to task, there is congruence.

So do you still doubt then my ability to type? You can question me all day and I'll respond and you can evaluate the statements and probe and interrogate, because I know my stuff and I'm good at it. Hence high degree of confidence in the model.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
For example untruth sits and gnaws at me. Hence why I'm so confident in "The Truth".
You are hilarious. Consider this: Everything but the color red does not sit well with you; in fact, it gnaws at you. Yet you wear blue every day, for you may, without ever realizing it, be colorblind. Thus is the nature of 'the Truth'.

I assume things to be true until shown to be not so. Unlike STJ's who's beliefs are more routed in the past (Si), I actively seek out ways to break down my system. I enjoy being wrong as a consequence.
That is a very strange thing to say. I hate to be wrong.

Ni is a good at getting to the objective truth expediently because it works across domains.

Do you agree?
That is a matter of definition.
 

five

New member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
141
MBTI Type
ZZZZ
Enneagram
5w6
You are hilarious. Consider this: Everything but the color red does not sit well with you; in fact, it gnaws at you. Yet you wear blue every day, for you may, without ever realizing it, be colorblind. Thus is the nature of 'the Truth'.

I'm not sure how that relates. If my senses where faulty then I'd acknowledge that and compensate.

That is a very strange thing to say. I hate to be wrong.

Nearly all people do not like being wrong. This aversion to "wrongness" can often prevent objective truth being learned at least in the short term.
 
Top