Concerns over the scientific wellbeing of Type threads

[entropie]

Then again Logic is a philosophy, Thinking AND Feeling the instruments to implement it

 

[Nocapszy]

The problem is, none of the other terms for the other 'intelligences' that you've mentioned have early as much cachet, and non of them capture the more sophisticated aspects of the respective talents they describe. So I wouldn't care if the definition of an 'intelligence' had to be changed.

Right... so instead, steal a word! Talk about intelligent acumen!

And besides, dictionary.com definitions mention "logic" only once, so everything I just mentioned is pretty much a moot point.

For what word? Intelligence or rationality? Let's not merge my clearly separate agendas.

Talk about multiple intelligences is not 'euphemistic'; it's a perfectly appropriate use of a word.

This coming from one of them.

And I can think of ways that each one of the 8 psychological types could become intellectuals through thier dominant function. And each of the types could be just as much of an intellectual.

Sure. It's possible. I don't disagree. Are you reading my post? I didn't say N > S, I said that it's worth considering that perhaps if you were born smart, you're more naturally inclined to develop intuitive tendencies. Intuition, being the result of, NOT CAUSE.

 

[entropie]

Wasn't nocapzy an entp, some days ago ? Or am I getting things confused

 

[Haphazard]

The problem is that 'intelligence' is a nice word and everyone else wants a piece of the pie.

There's a difference between 'intelligence' and 'talent'.

 

[entropie]

yes, intelligence is more like CIA xD

 

[Sniffles]

There's a difference between 'intelligence' and 'talent'.

We could also discuss the difference between 'intelligence' and 'wisdom'.

 

[Haphazard]

We could also discuss the difference between 'intelligence' and 'wisdom'.

Yes. They're quite different, too.

But when we already have words in the language that can describe someone's innate sense towards a specialty, why don't we use them instead of having to label everything 'intelligence'?

I personally like 'aptitude'. Makes more sense to me.

 

[entropie]

I like "banana hamcocks" havent figured out though what it means xD

 

[Nocapszy]

This line deserves its own response.

So I wouldn't care if the definition of an 'intelligence' had to be changed.

You might not care, but that's only because you lack understanding in the reasoning behind language. Definition is rigid for a reason. Look up definition.

If you don't already understand the reason we have set meanings there's probably no hope for you.
And I'd rather watch you squirm around in these arguments anyway, so I'm not going to offer to help you.

So, pretending you have knowledge I'm certain you don't, I impose the following:

The definition is not changed.
The people who tried to change it failed. They suffered humiliating defeat.
Using that word in that way is either euphemism, or misnomer, depending on what's being sanctioned.

It's not just one word we'd have to reconstruct.
It's an entire verse of words.

 

[Nocapszy]

We could also discuss the difference between 'intelligence' and 'wisdom'.

The problem is that 'intelligence' is a nice word and everyone else wants a piece of the pie.

There's a difference between 'intelligence' and 'talent'.

Thank you both.

 

[Nocapszy]

Wasn't nocapzy an entp, some days ago ? Or am I getting things confused

Type is a joke.

 

[Nocapszy]

From the New Oxford American Dictionary

definition |ˌdefəˈni sh ən|
noun
1 a statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary.
• an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something : our definition of what constitutes poetry.
• the action or process of defining something.
2 the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, esp. of an image in a photograph or on a screen.
• the capacity of an instrument or device for making images distinct in outline : [in combination ] high-definition television.

I don't see "nebula" anywhere in there.

Again, look for the root: fin.
Like at the end of an old italian film.
Like found in Finished
Meaning, no changes hereafter.

Do I have to pull up another quotation?

 

[entropie]

ah, ok, yes it is. I am was thinking about becoming a iNTj myself

 

[Haphazard]

ah, ok, yes it is. I am was thinking about becoming a iNTj myself

It's like... we're multiplying...

And Nocap, if type is a joke, that still doesn't explain why you have INTJ as your type code.

 

[Sniffles]

ah, ok, yes it is. I am was thinking about becoming a iNTj myself

Why the hell would you ever consider that?

 

[Athenian200]

Yes, there are smart Sensors, but they're usually in the fields of economics or something practical. N's still have the monopoly on useless theories that can't be related back to reality.

So, I don't think people are overestimating the number of Ns here.

Intelligence is much more desirable than Intuition, though, if you have to pick.

 

[Sniffles]

From the New Oxford American Dictionary



I don't see "nebula" anywhere in there.

Again, look for the root: fin.
Like at the end of an old italian film.
Like found in Finished
Meaning, no changes hereafter.

Do I have to pull up another quotation?

Ok but what about this?

Stipulative definition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently-existing term is given a new meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. When the term already exists, this new definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. Because of this, a stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect"; it can only differ from other definitions, but it can be useful for its intended purpose."

 

[entropie]

Why the hell would you ever consider that?

I like the i and the J. But you are right, to become an iNTp is more fun.

Then you can say "Hey there, I P" xDD

ok this one was flat xD.

---

I like those discussions about intelligence, wisdom and what else. But in the end I can not buy me anything from knowing that I am intelligent.

 

[entropie]

Furthermore, I like discussions about logic, but I dont like the philosopher's tone.

"Most important. Without logic you cannot give structure to your judgments or clearly see what your judgments are about. What could be more important?"

You can without any problem give structure to a judgement without logic, by just doing it. that is what good dictators are made of.

The tone; I dont like it, it is an invitation to narrow-mindedness in my opinion.

----

And something more, in the beginning of the thread, I guess nocap said something BlueWing did not understand. That I wanted to correct.

It is "If A means B does that not mean not B means not A" That means, if A = B , does that not mean - A = - B and that is absolutly correct.

Evolves arround mathematical logic though

 

[Nocapszy]

Ok but what about this?

You didn't prove me wrong, you just used an adjective.

An oxymoron I might add --



However I do recognize the existence of situations where the oxymoron is applicable.

Anyway, we're not arguing over the existence of variable definitions. The prevalent issue here is, do the concepts offered by the word intelligence apply to those categories Gabe mention -- the multiple 'intelligences'?

And that's not even truly the real argument here. It's just some side bullshit Gabe vomited -- something I've always wanted to address but never really bothered to.