Ni, Tarot and Confirmation Bias

[The WhimWham]

This is my first post here, but I've been reading about and pondering type and Jung's functions for about 10 years now. I'm not a newbie by any means.

Anyway, this may sound terribly biased but it's not meant as a judgement -- just trying to understand things by trying different angles.

It seems to me that tarot card reading is one of the best examples of Ni in action. It involves archetypes, introspection and "deeper meanings". It also involves massaging data and recontextualising it to fit those archetypal images.

In my opinion, it also involves a lot of "confirmation bias": a tarot reading can never be wrong, because all you have to do is recontextualise the data and... BAM! It all fits. (You also see this when an INTP and INTJ argue -- the INTP feels like the INTJ is playing a shell game in order to always be "right".)

So that's my hypothesis: so-called "confirmation bias" is an artefact of Ni.

As an added bonus, if you buy John Beebe's model (which I do), Ni in INTPs seems to manifest itself in the Senex/Witch archetype as a kind of negative "magical thinking" whereby everything seems to conspire to point towards the worst possible outcome. (See, for example, Billy Bob Thornton's more OCD-ish traits.) Again, it all involves confirmation bias, and this may explain why this is such a bugbear with INTPs.

Anyway, thoughts?

(I wrote this as conjecture but in the process near-convinced myself, but I'd still like others' input.)

 

[Nocapszy]

It seems to me that tarot card reading is one of the best examples of Ni in action. It involves archetypes, introspection and "deeper meanings". It also involves massaging data and recontextualising it to fit those archetypal images.

In my opinion, it also involves a lot of "confirmation bias": a tarot reading can never be wrong, because all you have to do is recontextualise the data and... BAM! It all fits.

Much like astrology, Nostradamus' predictions, and dream analysis.

So that's my hypothesis: so-cal led "confirmation bias" is an artefact of Ni.

As an added bonus, if you buy John Beebe's model (which I do), Ni in INTPs seems to manifest itself in the Senex/Witch archetype as a kind of negative "magical thinking" whereby everything seems to conspire to point towards the worst possible outcome. (See, for example, Billy Bob Thornton's more OCD-ish traits.) Again, it all involves confirmation bias, and this may explain why this is such a bugbear with INTPs.

Anyway, thoughts?

It seems plausible, but I doubt think Ni is the sole proprietor of CB. Additionally, I wouldn't stretch or contort myself to convince anyone that if they have a confirmation bias that it's the direct result of Ni. I'd even cluster Ni with Fi in this instance.

It's probably just an interesting coincidence.

I wrote this as conjecture but in the process near-convinced myself, but I'd still like others' input.

That happens a lot with NTPs. Of course, other types too, but NTPs probably more than the others.

 

[redacted]

i could see Ni being responsible for confirmation bias, though i'd say xNxJs probably learn to account for it. it seems like more of an underdeveloped Ni thing.

edit: i also agree with nocapszy about Fi being involved.

and when i think about it, i know a couple of xSFPs that are into it. (confirmation bias )

 

[Nocapszy]

Probably more underdeveloped Je thing.

 

[Totenkindly]

Probably more underdeveloped Je thing.

Or overdeveloped. Je without any underlying vision/sense of things will categorize inappropriately based on what seems expedient or comfortable.

I think the point is that the essence of Ni greatly complements confirmation bias.

My Ni is pretty healthy, but I do know i have a sense of fatalism. I might be projecting a big picture where none exists, then filling in the gaps with the likely tragedies that flesh it all out. Another problem is causes is that it actively can undermine Ti because it "discounts" any specific approach to a situation because I can't prove that particular framework to be any more true than another, potentially. (Still, ISxJs are often fatalist/dour. In that case, Ni is their 8th function and Ne is their auxiliary.)

Anyhoo, confirmation bias can also just be based on shoddy thinking, over-emotionalism, or a host of other things. Everyone is screwy, just in their own way.

 

[Haphazard]

Hmm...

Let's take a look into an INTJ's mind.

Ni puts everything into relativistic terms. Absolutely nothing can remain concrete, or so they've learned, so they've come to accept that everything has bias. Nothing can be taken at face value, because everything has the stink of something else all over it. Usually we don't believe that the 'stink' is evil (as INFJs do in their pursuit for 'sincerity') but as rather just the way the world is, and that one has to live with it and fight through the bias one's self.

Because nothing can be trusted, the INTJ must trust his own biases if he's ever going to get anywhere. He can accept that he has biases, and usually doesn't bother with 'in my opinion' at the end of phrases because he thinks that it should be obvious. These biases are relatively useless and harmless until they rub up against the real world. When they do, one bias can be proven effective and one can be proven ineffective. If the INTJ's bias is proven ineffective when actually handling the world around him for gains, be they personal or otherwise, he will refine them until they are effective. Because, on top of everything, effectiveness is also relative, the INTJ continually strives to make things more and more effective -- which is often perceived as the 'overtightening of screws' by other people.

When you argue with an INTJ, the INTJ naturally thinks that he is right. If he makes his statement and you don't immediately agree or shred the argument apart with logic, he will argue. Usually he'll try to attack your point with the amorphous idea in his head and struggle to shape it into words for weapons. What somebody else may perceive as a shift in an INTJs argument is one of three things: 1) the INTJ trying to reshape the argument because he thinks that the original argument didn't make sense to you and that you didn't 'get it,' so it bears repeating in different words that hopefully you'll understand, 2) the INTJ is subconsciously shifting their argument, which is a boo-boo on their part, or 3) the INTJ is consciously shifting their argument because of a previous boo-boo and is praying that you won't notice.

Also, according to an INTJ, they are never wrong. They will have an idea, and then they will intellectually spar with you and your idea. If your idea wins, then they will adopt your idea, but it's still theirs because it has become a part of their mind. They may not take credit for it, but they still have a grasp on it, and it's still good, so it's theirs. They may not have always been 'right,' but this doesn't matter because they're still 'right' in the present time, so they are moving on. The only reason why being 'wrong' previously would bother them is if they had done something very stupid because of their 'wrongness' or had hurt a loved one because of it, but otherwise, being wrong and then being found out is harmless and a part of the learning experience. This approach isn't either right or wrong, it's just something that INTJs have to do to sleep soundly at night.

Back to 'confirmation bias': what I see here is the INTP's Ti rubbing against Ni the wrong way. Ti finds and sorts 'truth' while Ni cannot see outright truths in anything. Ni sees how something can fit into something without any regards to truth, which is very much like a tarot reading. But, if this is accepted as being biased, does the fact that it's confirmation bias even matter anymore? If we accept that there was either a subconscious or conscious reason for information to be presented in a certain way, why should it matter? If we accept that, everything restabilizes and the fact that there was 'confirmation bias' in the first place is no longer important. It is just something that merely is.

 

[redacted]

hap, doesn't what you said about INTJs apply to INFJs as well?

 

[Haphazard]

hap, doesn't what you said about INTJs apply to INFJs as well?

Most of it does. Fe for INFJs helps to soften the blow of this bizarre logic to other people, though. Most of it applies, but if it were for an INFJ, it would be toned down quite a bit.

For example an INFJ may remain deferential to somebody who had taught them what was 'right' in order to preserve good relations while an INTJ wouldn't care. If the other person can't move on on from the fact that the INTJ made a mistake, then the INTJ would leave because the person is obnoxious. Most of the basic points would still stand for INFJs, though, because most of it is caused by domNi. However, I just knew that I'd get a lot of INFJs yelling at me if what I said didn't apply to them and I'd included them.

See, if I had done anything, it would be 'Stupid INTJ, not able to understand anyone but themselves!' but if another INFJ says anything they would just be 'Stupid... person!' If any INFJs want to highlight what still holds true for them from that very long, long, long post, be my guest.

 

[The WhimWham]

Much like astrology, Nostradamus' predictions, and dream analysis.

Absolutely. Of course, the irony here is that we could probably include type in that list as well.

It seems plausible, but I doubt think Ni is the sole proprietor of CB. Additionally, I wouldn't stretch or contort myself to convince anyone that if they have a confirmation bias that it's the direct result of Ni. I'd even cluster Ni with Fi in this instance.

It's probably just an interesting coincidence.

Can you go into more detail as to how Fi ties in here?

 

[Nocapszy]

Absolutely. Of course, the irony here is that we could probably include type in that list as well.

Not exactly. Most peoples' understanding maybe, but type doesn't attempt to know what's happening. It only describes what we can already see. It's like having a dictionary for personality. Most people don't use words right either though.

Can you go into more detail as to how Fi ties in here?

Fi tends to believe what it wants. It's a value judgement. How xxx phenomena makes someone feel is what matters. Not what makes sense.

It's not a perfect fit, but neither is Ni.

That being said, CB was designed to describe something more universal than type theory does, so it makes sense that it would have some overlap and some places where it doesn't quite match.

 

[The WhimWham]

I think the point is that the essence of Ni greatly complements confirmation bias.

Right. I'm not saying it's the only source of it, just that Ni and CB seem on quite friendly terms (or that's how it appears on the outside).

My Ni is pretty healthy, but I do know i have a sense of fatalism. I might be projecting a big picture where none exists, then filling in the gaps with the likely tragedies that flesh it all out. Another problem is causes is that it actively can undermine Ti because it "discounts" any specific approach to a situation because I can't prove that particular framework to be any more true than another, potentially.

"Fatalism" is dead-on, and I have the same propensities myself.

My favourite representation of Ni in INTPs is the role The Emperor plays in Return of the Jedi: demoralising Luke through a clear vision of certain doom.

(Still, ISxJs are often fatalist/dour. In that case, Ni is their 8th function and Ne is their auxiliary.)

(I'm guessing you meant to say "inferior" instead of "auxiliary" here.)

You're absolutely right on this, and it's one of the concepts I'm grappling with at the moment: how does Ni in IS_Js differ from its role in IN_Ps?

 

[nightning]

See, if I had done anything, it would be 'Stupid INTJ, not able to understand anyone but themselves!' but if another INFJ says anything they would just be 'Stupid... person!' If any INFJs want to highlight what still holds true for them from that very long, long, long post, be my guest.

What you've said is true enough in my case. Even with the bit about credit where credit is due...

"this idea is based on what so and so said..." Followed by a pile of other junk that somehow became linked in some absurd fashion (of cause in my mind it is perfectly sensible... Silly Ni ) Except that the pile of other ideas happens to originate from other sources too. And sense there are so many of them... and that I have no Si... Ummmm yes overtime the stuff just becomes MINE. ALL MINE. *hogs it*

I'm a combinator.... not an inventor.

Uhhhh right returning back from the tangent...

Confirmation bias... I only do that when the exact reason of why something happened isn't under debate. As hazard mentioned, nothing is unbias. Face with that, you either go with a version of "adjusted" bias (aka you attempt to eliminate bias to the best of your ability) or you go with the easiest biased version to accept (in this case my own. Ha!)

And you have to admit that the second way is so much dang easier. It's like snap decision so I can move onto something that DOES matter/interest me.

 

[redacted]

I'm a combinator.... not an inventor.

such a perfect way to put it.

Confirmation bias... I only do that when the exact reason of why something happened isn't under debate. As hazard mentioned, nothing is unbias. Face with that, you either go with a version of "adjusted" bias (aka you attempt to eliminate bias to the best of your ability) or you go with the easiest biased version to accept (in this case my own. Ha!)

And you have to admit that the second way is so much dang easier. It's like snap decision so I can move onto something that DOES matter/interest me.

it's impossible for me to accept something just because it's easy, therefore it's actually harder for me to go with the second way. i'm so obsessed with removing as much bias as possible that i end up stuck on issues way after everyone else has moved on to something else.

kind of makes school a problem i wish i was an SJ and could just accept the data for what it is. but no, i have to work out every single concept until i've accounted for every possibility i can imagine -- then i realize i've just missed 30 minutes of lecture...

again, i'd like to make the point that an Ni dom most likely has mechanisms in place to remove as much confirmation bias as possible. being a more conscious process, they're more likely to know Ni's limits.

 

[Haphazard]

it's impossible for me to accept something just because it's easy, therefore it's actually harder for me to go with the second way. i'm so obsessed with removing as much bias as possible that i end up stuck on issues way after everyone else has moved on to something else.

kind of makes school a problem i wish i was an SJ and could just accept the data for what it is. but no, i have to work out every single concept until i've accounted for every possibility i can imagine -- then i realize i've just missed 30 minutes of lecture...

again, i'd like to make the point that an Ni dom most likely has mechanisms in place to remove as much confirmation bias as possible. being a more conscious process, they're more likely to know Ni's limits.

School? Pfft. School isn't about learning but about how to play the game. You take in their information and spit back out everything the way they want it. If one takes it that way, the 'knowledge' one gets from school is absolutely irrelevant. What you're studying is the technique of how to give people enough of what they want so that you won't be bothered.

Nonetheless, I still have problems. A lot of the times I completely misinterpret the data to mean something that it's 'not supposed to mean,' even though there's no viable reason for why my interpretation is actually wrong. What can I say? I still need practice.

Most confirmation bias you'll get from INTJs and INFJs will be of the conscious variety, I think. They're probably lying to try to use their data for 'the greater good,' or possibly whatever they need at the moment. Being a more conscious function, such obvious bias is likely the result of meddling.

 

[nightning]

Most confirmation bias you'll get from INTJs and INFJs will be of the conscious variety, I think. They're probably lying to try to use their data for 'the greater good,' or possibly whatever they need at the moment. Being a more conscious function, such obvious bias is likely the result of meddling.

This one I don't agree with. It's not how I see myself doing things anyways. Much of it is just little tidbits that I unconsciously arrive at. So for example, I might suddenly have in my mind the most likely motive to explain somebody's action. Then I might automatically assume that person is acting along those lines. Then use that to predict what might happen next.

When you think about it... just because something is most probable doesn't mean it's true. Even if I accurately predict the outcome. It still doesn't say anything about what went through the person's head.

You don't really think about the assumptions you're making while you're doing it... and that to me is well I'm biased the most often. Because normally I guard myself against making silly mistakes like that.

 

[Athenian200]

Well, I do admit that there seem to be some universal themes reflected in tarot cards, even if they're not always accurate when drawn. There definitely seems to be something about them that appeals to the "collective unconscious."

Try looking at the four court cards in each suite. Count all of them together. Notice they're in four groups. Does this remind you of anything? I know logically that this is probably meaningless, but it seems like a strange coincidence, so much so that I was tempted to think there was a connection. It would be very easy to think Swords=NT, Cups=NF, Pentacles=SJ, and Wands=SP.

The cards themselves seem to hint at all the most common themes in people's lives in such an abstract way that they could apply to almost any period or lifestyle, and I think that's why so many people have faith in them.

I've actually began to wonder if functions are really much better than tarot cards in accuracy, though, because of how people apply them so abstractly they could mean almost anything you want them to.

As far as confirmation bias, I think you should read Economica's thread on INxJ Closed-minded certitude. She had a similar idea that she pushed very strongly.

I haven't experienced much of that rejection by most INTP's, but I often experience it from INFP's so strongly and consistently that I don't feel I can communicate with most of them. However, it's so consistent that I think it's a problem in my ability to communicate with them rather than a problem they have personally, even though it doesn't feel like it. Perhaps I just don't notice it as much with INTP's because the rejection is logical, and thus I take no offense and simply continue to explain and question until I understand their point or they understand mine (and they're so curious that they often do the same thing).

(Still, ISxJs are often fatalist/dour. In that case, Ni is their 8th function and Ne is their auxiliary.)

Ne is their inferior (4th), not their auxiliary (2nd).

ISFJ: Si, Fe, Ti, Ne (Se, Fi, Te, Ni)

ISTJ: Si, Te, Fi, Ne (Se, Ti, Fe, Ni)

 

[Haphazard]

This one I don't agree with. It's not how I see myself doing things anyways. Much of it is just little tidbits that I unconsciously arrive at. So for example, I might suddenly have in my mind the most likely motive to explain somebody's action. Then I might automatically assume that person is acting along those lines. Then use that to predict what might happen next.

When you think about it... just because something is most probable doesn't mean it's true. Even if I accurately predict the outcome. It still doesn't say anything about what went through the person's head.

You don't really think about the assumptions you're making while you're doing it... and that to me is well I'm biased the most often. Because normally I guard myself against making silly mistakes like that.

Part of it is realizing that you do have bias, that you do make assumptions, so that you can break them down when needed and make new connections.

What you see is a little like how I perceive chemistry. You can't see the atoms, they're too small (at least, they weren't able to for a long time), but you can use models to try to understand the movement of atoms, and thus predict the outcomes of various chemical reactions. It doesn't so much matter if the models are accurate ways of thinking as long as the results are accurate. If they're so small, then who's to tell if it's right or it's wrong? It's just a useful tool to explain why these things would possibly work.

The point that I was trying to make, though was that confirmation bias is created by ways of not putting old methods to the same rigors as new methods, or other methods that are distrusted. I'm not saying that INJs aren't biased, but the fact that they easily understand and recognize bias would make them viciously attracted to finding new ways to confirm their biases but still be attentive to the fact that their assumptions could be wrong. Such blatant use of confirmation bias, then, would likely be conscious as a means to an end. They would likely, at least, realize that something was wrong but perhaps be too pig-headed to fix the problem.

 

[The WhimWham]

Vista went into anaphylactic shock and rebooted itself while I was writing quite possibly the best post in the history of the universe, so now it's lost, never to be recreated. The following is a shadow of that lost post's greatness...

Because nothing can be trusted, the INTJ must trust his own biases if he's ever going to get anywhere. He can accept that he has biases, and usually doesn't bother with 'in my opinion' at the end of phrases because he thinks that it should be obvious. These biases are relatively useless and harmless until they rub up against the real world. When they do, one bias can be proven effective and one can be proven ineffective. If the INTJ's bias is proven ineffective when actually handling the world around him for gains, be they personal or otherwise, he will refine them until they are effective. Because, on top of everything, effectiveness is also relative, the INTJ continually strives to make things more and more effective -- which is often perceived as the 'overtightening of screws' by other people.

What I'm getting from this (which I absolutely agree with) is that Ni is like a series of perceptual lenses that can be swapped or refined as needed, but their worth is measured purely by utility (which I'd put down to Te).

Back to 'confirmation bias': what I see here is the INTP's Ti rubbing against Ni the wrong way. Ti finds and sorts 'truth' while Ni cannot see outright truths in anything. Ni sees how something can fit into something without any regards to truth, which is very much like a tarot reading. But, if this is accepted as being biased, does the fact that it's confirmation bias even matter anymore? If we accept that there was either a subconscious or conscious reason for information to be presented in a certain way, why should it matter? If we accept that, everything restabilizes and the fact that there was 'confirmation bias' in the first place is no longer important. It is just something that merely is.

Spot-on. The "confirmation bias" exists only if we assume that Ni is attempting to evaluate the data... which, of course, it isn't. Now that I think about it, though, it may be more a product of Ni coupled with Introverted Judgement, where there is evaluation going on, but in neither case is there reference to the real world.

 

[The WhimWham]

What you see is a little like how I perceive chemistry. You can't see the atoms, they're too small (at least, they weren't able to for a long time), but you can use models to try to understand the movement of atoms, and thus predict the outcomes of various chemical reactions. It doesn't so much matter if the models are accurate ways of thinking as long as the results are accurate. If they're so small, then who's to tell if it's right or it's wrong? It's just a useful tool to explain why these things would possibly work.

What comes to mind here is wave-particle duality in particular. I can imagine INTJs being quite comfortable with this notion, but the idea of "Well, if it works..." freaks INTPs out. (See, for example Einstein's famous objection to the randomness of quantum mechanics.)

 

[redacted]

School? Pfft. School isn't about learning but about how to play the game. You take in their information and spit back out everything the way they want it. If one takes it that way, the 'knowledge' one gets from school is absolutely irrelevant. What you're studying is the technique of how to give people enough of what they want so that you won't be bothered.

What you see is a little like how I perceive chemistry. You can't see the atoms, they're too small (at least, they weren't able to for a long time), but you can use models to try to understand the movement of atoms, and thus predict the outcomes of various chemical reactions. It doesn't so much matter if the models are accurate ways of thinking as long as the results are accurate. If they're so small, then who's to tell if it's right or it's wrong? It's just a useful tool to explain why these things would possibly work.

see this is the difference between Te and Ti. for me, school isn't at all about "spit[ting] back out everything the way they want it" (which seems to be a Te/implementation thing), it's about learning exactly how things work and fit with eachother (much more of a Ti thing). and the notion that models that work are "good enough" also doesn't sit well with me. again, it's not as much about implementation as an exact understanding of the nature of things.

the stance of the INTP in the above post (WhimWham's post) completely applies in my case. i cannot believe in anything but pure determinism because although it may explain things in a valid way, my Ti says it just doesn't fit.

This one I don't agree with. It's not how I see myself doing things anyways. Much of it is just little tidbits that I unconsciously arrive at. So for example, I might suddenly have in my mind the most likely motive to explain somebody's action. Then I might automatically assume that person is acting along those lines. Then use that to predict what might happen next.

the bolded section seems not to apply to me at all. i'm so scared of my own biases that it's very rare i'm sure of my stances. i'll usually start with a premise, take it all the way to a conclusion, switch to another possible premise, take that all the way to a conclusion, etc. until i've gone through all the possibilities i can think of. then i'll weight the conclusions and premises against one another and choose a stance that i think is most likely. even then, though, i still keep in mind the other interpretations and embrace the fact that one tiny tidbit of information could cause me to switch to them.

and i think that because i'm obsessed with being right all the time, i tend to verbalize the entirety of my thought process so that it's almost impossible to come up with an interpretation i haven't thought of. i also want to make sure that people know i notice and acknowledge the biases present with each stance.

this is at least how i've learned to deal with my own biases. i may have actually projected this way of thinking onto all INJs in my last post...